- Important case
Piyasvasti, PTT chair vs Admin of ‘take back Thai energy’ FB page
Latest Update: 09/07/2017
Defendant
Saran
Case Status
On trial in Court of Appeal
Case Started
2014
Complainant / Plaintiff
Piyasvasti Amranand, former Energy Minister served under Gen. Surayud Chulanont administration. He is also the Chairman of the Board of PTT.
Table of Content
In April 2014, Piyasvasti, a chair of PTT public company filed a case under defamation by publication and Computer-related Crimes Act Section 14, 15 against Saran, an admin of Facebook page 'take back Thai energy' for posting messages accused that Piyasavasi and his wife was fraudulent and obstructed the energy reform movement. The Court of the First Instance sentenced Saran to 9 months in prison without suspension. Later the Court of Appeal change the verdict to suspend prison sentence and order to fine Saran in the sum of 30,000 Baht.
Defendant Background
Saran, the Facebook page admin of “Tuangkuen Palang-ngan Thai” (Take babk Thai energy), had always been actively engaged with energy-related events. He was also a coordinator of Air Fresh Society, Map Ta Phut, Rayong Province.
Saran was an engineer and lived in Rayong Province. Saran has filed many complaints in regards to inspecting PTT facilities. Some of his complaints were addressed Gen. Prayut Chan-o-cha, the Governor of the Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand, the Governor of Rayong Province, and others. Saran thought that PTT facilities did not meet the safety standards. As a result the people were affected by leaking chemicals.
Offense
Article 14 (1) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 14 (5) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 326 / 328 Criminal Code
Allegation
Saran was the Facebook page admin of “Tuangkuen Palang-ngan Thai”. He posted a message on 19 March 2014, which read, “An opinion from a couple who lived in luxury on the nation’s resources!!! While the Thai people had to get through hardships because high cost of energy. Are you uncomfortable with that? Is that why you try to stop energy reform for Thai people?”. The message was imported to a computer system of forged computer data. It deemed damaging the plaintiff’s reputation.
On 27 March 2014, Saran shared a picture and a message from another Facebook account. The content was about the plaintiff and his wife, with a message read, “Piyasvasti Amranand, former Energy Minister during an era of corruption. Anik Amranand is a untrustworthy, unreliably, and deceitful Democrat MP, who will do anything for her own good. She is a dangerous person, and is the one who resists energy reform for Thai people. No one should support her. She is a scamming backstabber for the PDRC and the nation”. He also added some more text, “A bitchy and dishonest backstabber. She joined the group to protect her interest”. And another text, “A cheater. Very good at talking nicely”.
The act was considered as importing false information to the computer system. It deemed injurious to the plaintiff. The defendant, also a page admin, implicity support or censent by letting others to post their comments on the page. A message read “These two people control PTT’s interest, and pay political parties. No politicians or parties make a fuss about PTT”. This deemed as importing to a computer system of forged computer data under his control.
According to the plaintiff’s complaint, the defendant accused the plaintiff to the other person in a manner likely to impair the reputation of such other person or to expose such other person to be hated or scorned. The plaintiff asked the judge to consider the punishment of Section 326 and 328 of the Criminal Code, and Section 14(1) and 15 of the Computer-related Crimes Act.
Circumstance of Arrest
No information
Trial Observation
No information
Black Case
อ.1026/2557
Court
Bangkok South Criminal Court
Additional Info
Besides this case, Sarun was sued by PTT company in another case for posting 20 messages on the Facebook page. The Court of Appeal sentenced him for 40 months in prison with suspension and 800,000 baht fine.
Reference
No information
17 April 2014
Bangkok South Criminal Court accept this case for consideration. While defending in the trial, Saran was granted bail with the security of 100,000 Baht.
29 September 2015
Bangkok South Criminal Court delivered the sentence. The defendant was found guilty under Section 326 and 328 of the Criminal Code, and Section 14 (1) and 15 of the Computer Crime Act. The defendant’s crime was one act violated many provisions. The defendant was sentenced by the Section 14 (1) and 15 of the Computer Crime Act, which carried the most severe punishment. The Court ruled 1 year imprisonment for the defendant but the defendant’s testimony somewhat benefits the trial. The court reduced the punishment by one-fourth to 9-month imprisonment.
24 February 2016
Saran requested for retrial to the Court of Appeal.
10 October 2016
Saran filed a petition, requesting the Court of Appeal to summon the document evidences, in case of PTT did not return the pipeline completely, from the Office of the Auditor General of Thailand (OAG).
8 November 2016
The Court of Appeal scheduling for verdict annoucement. Prior to announcing the sentence, the defendant’s lawyer reminded that a petition was filed on 10 October 2016, requesting the documentary evidence from the OAG. The judge argued that the evidence would not be influential and would never change the verdict. Therefore the judge did not order to summon such evidence. After answering the question, the judge started delivering the sentence.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the Court of First Instance’s decision. The defendant was convicted of defamation under the Criminal Code, and of the Computer-related Crimes Act. The fact was that the defendant never served prison sentences before, and the ground of the conviction was about the opinion's on energy policies that did not harm the plaintiff’s reputation so much. The crime was less serious. The judge suspended the Court of First Instance’s decision of a 9-month imprisonment to two years. In order to have the defendant learn the lesson, the judge fined him 40,000 Baht, then reduced by one-third. The total fine was 30,000 Baht.
31 January 2017
Piyasvasti Amranand filed another civil lawsuit to Bangkok South Criminal Court. The complaint stated that the defendant intentionally published the message that was contrary to the truth, asserted, and circulated as a fact. The plaintiff served as the Energy Minister, who worked with integrity for the nation’s interests. He had never been sued for misconduct as the defendant claimed. The plaintiff never impeded the energy reform. The decision making on energy policies had to follow procedures, and was involved many officials.
Bangkok South Criminal Court had previously decided that the defendant’s act was about importing to a computer system of forged computer data, and offence of defamation by means of publication. Then the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the Civil Court. No party submitted a petition, and the case was ended. This case was both a civil and a criminal one. The facts could be considered and concluded when the Criminal Court decided that the defendant’s action was an offence of defamation to the plaintiff. The defendant had to do what was appropriate to restore the plaintiff’s damaged reputation.
The plaintiff asked the judge to consider ordering the defendant to publish the Bangkok South Criminal Court’s verdict, an apologetic message, and the truth according to the plaintiff. All this to be published in a full colour newspaper page, on 7 newspapers; Thairath, Daily News, Kom Chad Luek, Post Today, Khao Sod, Matichon, and Bangkok Biz News, continuously for 7 days. The defendant had to bear the cost of publishing by himself. The plaintiff also wanted the defendant to reimburse the court fees and lawyer fees.
Verdict
The Summary of the Court of Appeal’s Verdict
The plaintiff claimed himself to be a witness, who testified that he never impeded the energy reform. He only advised what was beneficial to the nation and the government at the time. The plaintiff did not talk about energy-related subjects on PDRC stage. But he talked about state-owned enterprise administration. The plaintiff never obstructed anyone to talk about energy-related subjects on the stage. The plaintiff had Suratchai, the attorney, and Paiboon Amornpinyokiat, a witness. They both testified that the defendant imported false messages.
The judge considered that the plaintiff’s witnesses affirmed that the plaintiff had no intention as stated by the defendant mentioned on the Facebook posts. At first the judge had to agree that the plaintiff was a good and honest man, and did not cause any damage to the nation regarding energy-related subjects. The plaintiff only had different opinions on energy policies to the defendant’s group.
The defendant testified that the information on Facebook was a fact. There were witnesses included M.L. Wanwipha Charoonroj Burutratanapan, Dr. Kamolpan Cheewapansri, Mr. Sommart Prontee, and Mr. Panthep Puapongpan. The defendant also had documentary evidences submitted. The judge deemed the defendant’s witnesses did not affirm whether the plaintiff acted as claimed. And the documentary evidences had not been analyzed. They were more like personal thoughts that could be changed according to their interests, experiences, and opinions.
The judge considered circumstances, sources, and facts of the documentary evidences accordingly. The judge found that the defendant’s evidences was insufficient, comparing to the plaintiff’s. For this case, the plaintiff was actually the eyewitness who directly involved in the issues. The judge ruled that the message posted by the defendant about the plaintiff’s behavior was false.
When the defendant posted and shared the alleged massage, that was a violation of the plaintiff’s rights. Reasonable persons could believe that the plaintiff and his wife misbehaved, took advantage of the people, and caused damage to the nation. All this could have damaged the plaintiff’s reputation, as well as could have been insulted and hatred. The defendant’s action was therefore a wrongdoing, filed by the plaintiff.
The defendant appealed that the plaintiff and his wife were public figures, who were to be criticized and condemned. And people had questions regarding the plaintiff’s management on energy issues, such as offering so much petroleum concessions the government had never been done this much before, extending oil and gas concession agreements, expanding concession areas, and amending energy laws so there would be conflict of interest. The judge reasoned that though the defendant had the right to freedom of opinion and expression, to criticize normally as ordinary people would do, but that expression must not violate other’s and their family member’s rights, honor, reputation, and privacy of the plaintiff and his family member. The defendant could not just express his opinion without limit.
The defendant argued that the Court of First Instance considered only the plaintiff’s evidence, not the defendant’s, and reduced examinations and proceedings. The judge reasoned that the defendant did not submit any statements during the first trial as stated in the Court of Appeal. The Criminal procedure clearly stated the Court of First Instance’s discreation when considering the evidences. The defendant’s argument was not sufficient to invalidate the Court of First Instance’s proceedings.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the Court of First Instance’s decision. It was that the defendant was found guilty of defamation and under the Computer Crime Act. But the defendant had never served prison sentences. And the ground of the charges was about opinion and expression on national energy policies. The circumstances of the case did not cause much damage to the plaintiff’s reputation. The judge considered that the crime was not too severe, and decided to suspend the imprisonment for three years.
In order to have the defendant learn the lesson, the judge fined him 40,000 Baht, then reduced by one-fourth. The total fine was 30,000 Baht.