- Important case
Jatupat: shared BBC’s article
Latest Update: 22/04/2021
Defendant
Jatupat
Case Status
Judgment / End of trial
Case Started
2016
Complainant / Plaintiff
Lt.Col. Phitakpol Chusri or ‘Seh Pete’ is an accuser who reported to the police.
Table of Content
On 2 December 2016 around 5.07 am, the Facebook account under the name "Pai Jatupat" which belongs to New Democracy Movement activist Jatupat or Phai, shared the biography of the new King of Thailand. In the same Facebook status, Phai also copied part of the article.
Lt. Col. Phitakpol Chusri, the acting head of Civilian Affair Division of Military Circle 23 observed Pai’s post and filed a complaint to the police.
On 3 December 2016, the police arrested Jatupat while participating in the activity "Ritual March to Pranaw River" under the Lese Majeste charge and the Computer-related Crime Act. Jatupat was detained at a police station for one night before he was release on bail on 4 December 2016.
On 22 December 2016, the Khonkean Provincial Court ordered to revoke Japupat's bail. The revocation happened after the police filed a complaint to the court to revoke Jatupat's bail given that he failed to comply with the bail petition.
Jatupat was detained in the prison since 22 December 2016, Jatupat's lawyer tried to seek for Jatupat's liberty by filing a petition against the revocation order as well as by filing new bail petition. However, all attempts were denied and Jatupat was in detention since.
There were witness examination on 3-4 August 2017 and on 15 August 2017 Jatupat changed his plea to guilty and the court sentenced him for 5 yeras in prison and reduced to 2 years 6 months.
Defendant Background
Jatupat of Pai, 25, is a student t faculty of law, Khon Kaen University. He joined a lot of social activists including being a member of Daodin group. He also participated in many activities in North East of Thailand together with peopl who affect from economic development project. Jatupat and Daodin group, once, received a 'Inspiration model' award in the 5th Khon Kon Khon Award. He is now joining political activities with New Democracy Movement (NDM)
Offense
Article 14 (3) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 112 Criminal Code
Allegation
Around 5:07 a.m. of 2 December 2016, Jatupat shared an article from BBC Thai on his personal Facebook account under the name “Pai Jatupat” to post a message. As it was set to be visible to general public, it could be seec and read by everyone. Inquiry officials perceived the piece of information as defamation to the King and, as a result, Jatupat was charged with Article 112 of the Criminal Code and Article 14 (3) of the Computer Related Crime Act.
Circumstance of Arrest
On 3 December 2016, around 7.30 a.m. Jatupat was presented an arrest warrant by police officer when he was joining the activity called “Ritual March to Pataw River” at Wat Pong Chang in Kaeng Khro District, Chaiyaphum Province. The officers showed the warrant and informed the accustion to Jatupat, before taking him to an unknown destination.
Trial Observation
No information
Black Case
อ 301/69
Court
Khon Kaen Provincial Court
Additional Info
No information
Reference
2 December 2016,
At 5.07 a.m. Jatupat used his personal Facebook account under the name “Pai Jatupat” to share an article about biography of the new king of Thailand. Jatupat had also copied some of the text in the mentioned story into his Facebook post.
3 December 2016,
At 8.02 a.m. Jatupat made use of his Facebook account to broadcast a live video of an incident where police came to charge him under Article 112, which was Thailand’s lèse majesté law, while he was participating the Ritual March to Pataw River activity. This arrest was conducted under a report from Lt. Col. Phitakpol Chusri, as known as Seh Pete (Military Chief Pete), who was the acting head of Civilian Affair Division of Military Circle 23. A little later, Jatupat posted a message on his Facebook saying “Now I’m about to be arrested under Article 112 charge by Khon Kaen officers because I have shared news from BBC Thai.”
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) described that approximately 2.30 p.m., it was still unknown where Jatupat was being taken to and was unable to contact him as well. A volunteer lawyer from TLHR, who was there to assist Jatupat with legal aid, was taken to travel on a pickup truck with the police. The legal adviser was informed only he would be taken to see Jatupat. However, the ride was going around and stopped at Thai Police Training Center Region 4 along the way. Besides, lawyer’s cellphone was seized by the authorities as well.
Later, it was acknowledged that the officers led Jatupat to Thai Police Training Center Region 4 to investigate. Then Pol. Col. Viset Phakdivut, the chief inquiry officials, informed him with charges under Criminal Code’s Article 112 and the Computer-related Crime Act. Jatupat denied the allegation.
Until arout 3.30 p.m., the police informed that Jatupat would be detained during the investigation at Nam Phong Police Station, in Nam Phone District of Khon Kaen Province, instead of Khon Kaen Provincial Police Station since the case was claimed to involve national security. He would also be brought before Khon Kaen Provincial Court for a pre-trial detention on the following day.
4 December 2016,
BBC Thai reported that Athipong Phuphiw, Jatupat’s lawyer, stated that around 10 a.m. of this day, the police officer detained Jatupat and brought him before Khon Kaen Provincial Court for a pre-trial detention. His legal team requested for a temporary release with a 400,000–baht guarantee and reasoned that Jatupat was still a student and his university exam was set up to be taken soon on 8 December 2016. If Jatupat did not take it, he would have not graduated. Moreover, he was also a political prisoner for four cases already, yet he had never attempted to escape. As a result, the Court agreed to release Jatupat on bail.
22 December 2016,
The hearing to revoke the bail contract.
At the courtroom 1, the Court ordered a secret trial by reasoning that the case concerned the national security and disturbed the public order. The court also said that it was a sensitive issue which may create some psychological effects to people in the society. The criminal procedure lasted about two hours and 30 minutes.
The lawyer objected against the inquiry officers’ request. He said that the court did not provide conditions for temporary release; therefore, the suspect did not know how to properly behave and then continued to lead his life and convey his thoughts on Facebook as usual, as he believed it was the right to freedom of expression.
After the investigation in the morning, in the afternoon the court read out the order stating that according to the bailout petition, the court reiterated the guarantor and the suspect to attend all hearing following the schedule, leave alone hard drugs and evidences for the case, or not cause any detriment after the release. If he had been found violating any of those conditions, the court may withdraw the bail request and not allow it again.
Subsequent to the release, it was discovered that the suspect did not erase his Facebook post which was accused in this case. On social media, he also conducted his manners in a way which symbolically mocked the state’s authority, no fear of state laws, and harmed the nation. In addition, the suspect tended to carry on this behaviour.
The accused was a 25-year-old law student. He must know that the earlier mentioned action was an infringement to the court’s order. Consequently, the court saw that the suspect has caused damages after being released. Besides, the suspect’s guarantor did not supervise him to follow the Court’s conditions, bringing on this damage, the court then ordered to recoke the suspect’s bail contract.
Following the hearing, Jatupat still remained normal, showing no worries. Yet, he admitted that he felt that it was unforeseen and his lawyer made a request to bail him out again. The lawyer gave a reason that Jatupat was currently studying laws at Khon Kaen University in the final year. Since his computer examination was coming up on 16 January 2017, if he had not been bailed out then he could not finish school. Also, Jatupat had no indicative behaviors of fleeing or intefering the evidences at all. Meanwhile, the authorities brought Jatupat to be detained at Khon Kaen Prison. But the court dismissed the request for bail this time.
Khon Kaen Provincial Court was set to examine Jatupat's deposition after the prosecutor had filed a prosecution order against Jatupat or 'Pai Daodin', a student activist under lese majeste law on February 9, 2017. The prosecution was lodged after Jatupat shared a biography of King Rama X from BBC Thai’s website.
Since morning, a group of Jatupat’s supporters (approximately a hundred including activists from New Democracy Movement, Daodin Activist and community activists) gathered in front of the Khon Khean Provincial Court to show their solidarity with Jatupat. The prison's vehicle however escorted Jatupat in to the court compound by using the back gate and escorted him to the proceeding room immediately.
In proceeding process, the court ordered to proceed secretly given that it was a matter of national security. Only defense lawyer and Jatupat’s family members including his father, mother and sister was allowed inside the court room. It was reported later that Jatupat denied all allegation. The court then set to examine witnesses and evidences on 21 March 2017. It was also reported that the prosecutor had made an objection should the defendant wish to file bail petition.
Around 10.20 am. Jatupat was held in a temporary cell for about 10 minutes before he was escorted back to prison. Many supporters who waited outside the court to greet him had no chance to do so. The defense lawyer stated that Jatupat will not file a bail petition today as it had been dismissed several times. Once the lawyer prepared a strong case to convince the court that Jatupat will not take flight, then a bail petition will be filed once again.
After the proceedings were over, a group of students gathered outside the court compound to conducts a symbolic action. Poems were read and the symbol of an unbalanced scale with a military boot hung on it was also set up outside the court compound.
27 December 2016,
According to BBC Thai, the Court of Appeal Region 4 of Khon Kaen dismissed the appeal motion for bail application of Jatupat reasoning that the alleged offender had behaved defiantly to the state power and the law. Should he be released, he would have tampered with the evidence.
Jatupat’s lawyer, Athipong Phupew revealed that the Court claimed that the alleged offender had not only deleted the post that had implicated him in this case, but had also made more posting in a mockery of state power. In the attorney’s view, the reason given by the Court (to have the post deleted) seemed to contradict to the Court’s order against the tampering with evidence since by deleting the post, it would be tantamount to destroying evidence. But since the Court has made such decision, the alleged offender was willing to have the post deleted and to reapply for bail again.
Athipong also stated that he would apply for Jatupat’s bail again on 28 December 2016 and would increase the amount of surety bond as well as to provide more justification including that Jatupat had to sit in an examination on computer on 16 January 2017. It was the last subject he needed in order to complete his undergraduate education.
28 December 2016,
According to the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), Jatupat’s attorney pleaded to the Khon Kaen Provincial Court that there were unlawful procedure of the pretrial detention against the alleged offender since it was found that the alleged offender had not been informed beforehand about the third remand request and he had not stated he would not object the requested custody as recorded by the Court.
According to his attorney, on 26 December 2016, the inquiry officials had submitted a request to the Court to prolong the detention of the alleged offender for the third time and the Court had granted the request. The Court’s order was supposed to be effective since 27 December 2016 and the Court had claimed the trial took place via videoconferencing during which Jatupat did not oppose the remand request.
Nevertheless, according to Jatupat’s father, Viboon, who had gone to visit his son in the prison, he insisted that after a query, Jatupat insisted that the Court had not informed him that the police had requested for a renewal of his pretrial custody and he had not got to read the remand request as well as had not stated that he would not oppose the extension of his custody as noted by the Court. And Jatupat intended to object the extension of his provisional custody. Therefore, the third remand request could be unlawfully conducted. And thus, the attorney had lodged an objection to the procedure. In his objection motion, the attorney asked the Court to conduct a hearing on this motion and to revoke the order to renew the pretrial detention made on 27 December 2016 and allow the alleged offender to exercise his right to object the third remand request. And when the next remand request is made, the Court should have it read out to the alleged offender, his attorney and witness in the courtroom instead of relying on videoconferencing.
Around 17.30, the Court was having a videoconferencing with Jatupat who was in the prison, while the attorney was excluded from the hearing. After that the court official had brought to Jatupat’s attorney who was waiting outside the courtroom the motion to have the remand request revoked. The Court then decided that;
The alleged offender objected by saying that the requester (inquiry official) had no power to ask to extend his pretrial detention since there was no reason to further hold him in custody for inquiry. The witnesses to be further inquired had no relations with the alleged offender and as to the requester’s claim that they had to wait for criminal records of the alleged offender from the Criminal Records Division, the requester could simply wait for that without having to have the alleged offender in further custody. Also, the alleged offender needed to sit in an examination on computer at the Khon Kaen University on 17 and 18 January 2016. He needed to have time outside to prepare for the examination. Therefore, he asked the Court to have the motion to extend his pretrial custody dismissed.
The Court sees Jatupat's request is inadmissible and given that it is necessary to have the alleged offender in further custody pending the inquiry of four more witnesses and the wait for the criminal records of the alleged offender from the Criminal Records Division. Also, this case was related to national security and groups of people who had expressed opinion via social media. It was therefore reasonable to continue to have the alleged offender in further custody. At this stage, the Court granted as requested to have the alleged offender held in custody for another 12 days from 28 December 2016 – 8 January 2017.
On the same day, BBC Thai reported that the Academic Network for Civil Rights (TANC) had issued a press statement urging the Court to review the decision to dismiss Jatupat’s bail application claiming that Jatupat had not infringed on the bail conditions set forth by the Court including being prohibited to get involved with narcotic substances, not to tamper with evidence, or not to cause further damage as well as being required along with the bail bond person to report themselves to the Court as appointed. In addition, the alleged offender had not appeared to abscond as he was to sit in an examination to complete his undergraduate education in January 2017.
13 January 2017,
According to the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), today, Jatupat’s attorney has applied for bail again and this time Jatupat agreed to change privacy setting of the post that implicated him to ‘private’ making other people not be able to read it, though he could not delete the post since it was part of the evidence to be introduced in the trial. Jatupat also cited his need to sit in an examination as a reason to have him bailed out and would place 500,000 baht for surety bond. Neverhteless, the Court has decided to again dismissed his bail application claiming that;
Previously, the Court of Appeal Region 4 had already dismissed the application for temporary release of the alleged offender claiming he might get to tamper with the evidence or to commit other harmful acts which might become harmful to the police investigation or the court procedure. And this time, the Court also dismissed the bail application. It was the fourth of its kind that the alleged offender was denied his right to bail.
1 February 2017,
Now 26 Online reported that the Khon Kaen Provincial Court granted another ten-day custody of Jatupat from 2-11 February 2017 claiming the investigation had not been completed and the investigation report was being submitted for review by the Office of the Royal Thai Police seeking its legal opinion. On the same day, Jatupat placed 400,000 baht as surety for bail, but it was denied by the Court which claimed that there was no reason to make change to the previous order that denied him bail.
Anond Nampha, one of Jatupat’s attorney, posted on his personal facebook that during the trial, the Court ordered the hearing to be conducted behind closed door and asked all of Jatupat’s supporters to leave the room. His mother stood up pleading that she could sacrifice her life to in return for justice and then ran toward the wall and hit her head against the wall of the courtroom. All observers and supporters of Jatupat helped to bring Jatupat’s mother out to receive treatment, after which the judges continued the secret hearing, which eventually led to another permission to have Jatupat further held in custody.
9 February 2017,
Indictment
10 February 2017,
Deposition Examination
Khon Kaen Provincial Court scheduled to have a hearing with Jatupat after the case had been indicted by the public prosecutors on 9 February 2017. In the morning about 100 people gathered there to show their solidarity with Jatupat who was brought to the Court on a prison vehicle. He was supposed to come with a car from the front gate of the Court, but instead, the officials had brought him in through the back door and took him straightaway to the courtroom. As a result, Jatupat had no change to greet and meet his supporters.
In the procedure, the Court has since the beginning ordered this to be a secret trial. Claiming it was involved with national security. Only the defense attorney, his parents and sister were allowed to attend the hearing. After the trial ended, there was a report that Jatupat pleaded not guilty to all changes. The Court then scheduled to examine evidences on 21 March 2017. It was also reported that the public prosecutor told the Court to oppose the defendant’s bail.
Around 10.20, Jatupat was brought to a cell at the basement of the courthouse for around ten minutes, and then suddenly transferred to the prison causing many waiting supporters to miss the chance to talk with and give him moral support. The defense attorney later explained that there shall be no bail application today since such attempt had been made many times and the Court had rejected them. They needed to find a more convincing ground to make the Court believe the defendant would not flee. As a result, the remand in custody of Jatupat continued.
22 February 2017,
According to Matichon Online, around 10.30, Sulak Sivaraksa and Pawinee Chumsri, TLHR’s attorney and Jatupat’s parents applied for Jatupat’s bail. This time, the legal team and Jatupat’s father placed 700,000 baht as surety with Sulak Sivaraksa and Viboon Boonpattararaksa, Pai’s father, acting as bail bond person. In addition, Gothom Arya, Ekkaphan Pinthawanich and Dr. Niran Pitakwatchara jointly signed a letter certifying the demeanor of Jatupat and guaranteeing that he would not abscond.
Around 11.40, the Court dismissed the bail application claiming no reasons were found to revoke the previous order to not allow the bail.
The bail application was the seventh of its kind and the sixth of which that had been rejected by the Court.
21 March 2017,
Evidences Examination
The review of evidence commenced today. It was conducted in public with about 30 observers. They all receive the instruction from the Court to have their phones turned off. Military police officials were deployed in the courtroom as well. Given the full capacity of the room, a dozen of Jatupat’s friends had to sit outside.
The defense attorneys began by pleading to the Court to postpone the trial today since they had not had much time to talk with the defendant given the defendant had been remanded and the visiting room in prison was overcrowded. The attorney team further pleaded that they had made a request to the prison to set aside a private space for them to meet with Jatupat, but it was denied. Jatupat added that there was eavesdropping in the visiting room.
Jatupat pleaded that given that many of his rights had been deprived, it was as if he had already been convicted. He was deprived of his freedom and was not able to acquire evidence to fight the charges. Whilst the public prosecutors had ninety days to acquire evidence, he only had little time to meet with his attorneys.
In response to Jatupat and the defense attorneys, the Court said that given that the defendant had been remanded in custody for a long time, he would not allow to postpone the schedule and he did not want to have the trial further protracted. In this case, there were several defense attorneys, so they could help to acquire evidence to fight the charges. But in order for the defendant and the attorneys to have time to discuss, the Court would adjourn the morning session to let them discuss and would resume the trial again at 13.30.
In addition, the Court asked Jatupat to stop making the point of being “disadvantageous” since this was not the only case the Court had not granted bail and the decision of the Appeal Court should be taken as final. Viboon Boonpattararaksa, Jatupat’s father, raised his hand in protest saying that he would like to object the Court’s instruction that the term ‘disadvantage’ should not be used since it has been clear to everyone as to what the situation was like. As to the argument about the detail of right to bail, the Court promised to look into it later.
The evidence examintaion resumed at 14.30. Prior to that, the Court asked all the trial observers to leave their bags and phones outside the courtroom.
The public prosecutor pleaded to the Court that 17 witnesses shall be giving testimonies to the Court including Lt.Col. Pithakphon Chusri who reported the case to the police, the arresting officials, computer and internet experts and linguistic experts.
The defense attorney pleaded that they would present to the Court 15 witnesses including those acquaintances who used to work with the defendant, computer and internet experts and linguistic experts. They would submit to the Court the witness list of defendant within 15 days after today.
Today, the parties and the Court also agreed to have the next hearings to examine the prosecution witnesses on 3,4,15,16, and 17 August 2017 and the defense witnesses on 30,31 August and 5 – 7 September 2017.
After the scheduling of hearing dates, Jatupat raised his hand to ask the Court that prior to the commencement of witness examination, would he have the right to bail, like defendants in other cases or not. The Court replied that the reason he accelerated the trial process was because the defendant had been remanded in custody for a long time already, but during the witness examination, the defendant will remain held in custody except if there are new grounds, the defendant could invoke and apply for bail with the Court.
On that day, the defense attorney applied for Jatupat’s bail again placing the sum of 700,000 baht and promising the Court that the defendant would adhere strictly to the instructions of the Court including;
1.The defendant would refrain from expressing himself via social media including facebook and would not express his political opinions through any means, the likes of which constitute the show of mocking the state authorities.
2. The defendant shall not commit any acts that would harm the trial process.
3. The defendant shall not abscond from the Court’s jurisdiction and shall report himself to the Court every ten days and shall attend all the court hearings as scheduled. And if the Court finds it appropriate to add more conditions, he would be willing to act in compliance with any.
Around 16.00, the Court ordered to dismiss Jatupat’s bail claiming that the case was involved with national security and the Court of Appeal Region 4 had already given such instruction and there was no reason to make change to such instruction. The bail application was then dismissed.
3 August 2017,
The Khon Kaen Provincial Court scheduled for a witness hearing. Before the judges appeared on the bench, there were around 10 observers and relatives of the defendant present in the courtroom. Everyone felt uncertain whether the court would allow observers because there were some signs of a secret trial. For example, the court official put a sign signalling 'secret' on the door or the plaintiff witness informed the prosecutor about the presence of observers.
Once the judges appeared, they ordered to try this case in secret. Only lawyers and the defendant’s parents were allowed to be in the room.
The first witness is Lt. Col. Phitakpol Chusri, a military personel who reported this case to the police. The hearing was conducted for a long period of time from the morning until after 4pm but the defense lawyer still did not complete the cross examination. As the witness was unable to be present at the court the next day to testify, the court then ordered to have another schedule for this witness but this new schedule had not been determined. For the next day, the court will preside over the hearing of other witnesses.
The trial in this case was conducted in a very secretive manner. The court reasoned that this is a case of national security, and thus, it must be tried in camera. The court also reiterated to the lawyers and the defendant’s family and noted in the trial record that ‘the dissemination of the hearing today is strictly prohibited’.
4 August 2017,
The Khon Kaen Provincial Court scheduled for further witness hearings. The second plaintiff’s witness is ‘Jarinee’. She is an eye witness who knew Jatupat and she is a junior who joined a camp with Jatupat.
Before the trial began, the mother of Jatupat requested the court for permission to grant her a private conversation with Jatupat. What was unusual is 5-6 uniformed policemen were standing in front of the courtroom until ‘Jarinee’ returned. The policemen protected the witness and disallowed any contact with the witness. The Prosecutor kept telling ‘Jarinee’ to separate herself from other observers, relatives and supporters of the defendant.
Some of Jatupat’s friends stated that they observed ‘Jarinee’ exit the court with Lt. Col. Phitakpol, the first witness, during the lunch break with a Fortuner car with a military officer as a driver.
After the second witness hearing was completed, the following witnesses continued to testify on the same day. There were 3 more witnesses, who are representatives from the provincial cultural office, the president of the lawyer council of Khon Kaen and the president of the ‘We love the King’ club.
The proceedings of the closed-door trial progressed in a secretive manner. Outsiders had no chance to know what was happening in the courtroom as the court ordered an entirely secret trial. From the facial expressions of the defendant’s family members and the lawyers who exited the courtroom, it can be seen that the atmosphere in the room was very tense.
15 August 2017,
Before the plaintiff witness hearing began in a closed door trial, the court asked the defedant again for his confession. The lawyer team and prosecutor left the room and let Jatupat, his parents and the court discussed inside. It took half and our before the parents left the courtroom and let Jatupat decide by himself while the court also left the room to discuss with his panel judges.
Around 11.00 Jatupat decided to change his plea to guilty and the court told everyone to read the verdict in the afternoon.
Around 16.00 Khonkhean Provincial Court read the verdict behind the close door and sentenced Jatupat to imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months without suspension under Article 112 of the Criminal Code (lèse majesté law). The initial prison term was 5 years but was mitigated to 2 years and 6 months due to Jatupat's guilty plea. The decision by Jatupat to register the guilty plea was made this morning.
After deducting the date of his pre-trial detention from the 2 years and 6 months prison sentence, Jatupat will be serving around 1 year and 10 months. However, if parties to the case decide not to appeal, Jatupat's case proceedings will end and the length of his prison sentence will be subject to deduction based on his behavior in prison.
Verdict
No information