- iLaw Website
- Documentation Center
Case
Case name
Case status
คำอธิบายสถานะคดี ภาษาอังกฤษ
On trial in Court of First Instance
Status of Accused
On bail
Offense / order
Article 14 (3) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 14 (5) Computer Related Crime Act, Article 112 Criminal Code, Article 116 Criminal Code
Summary
'Sichon' is a pseudonym of the defendant. He was arrested on 26 September 2018 under an arrest warrant from Bangkok Military Court. He was charged for posting a picture of King Rama the 9th with his comment on his facebook. He was initially charged under lese majeste law and detained in prison. Later, the police did not prosecute him under this charge but leave only charges under Computer-related Crimes Act. The case then transferred to civilian court. The civilian prosecutor, however, prosecuted him by adding the Sedition charge under Section 116 of Criminal Code.
Background of accused
Legal Claims
Offence against security, Illegal dissemination of information, Lèse-majesté, Sedition
-
Form of restriction on freedom
Charge filed
-
Type of media
Social Network
-
Province
Bangkok
-
Court
Criminal Court
-
Black case
คำอธิบายคดีดำ ภาษาอังกฤษ
Court: ศาลอาญา No: อ.3406/2561 Date: 2018-11-14 -
Arrest warrant
23/2559 on 2016-04-05
The inquiry official of TCSD appealed to the Military Court to remand the defendant for 12 days during the investigation. The Bangkok Military Court thus accept its custody request. “Sichon”was sent to Bangkok Remand Prison.
On the due date of the fourth remand, which was the last day that could detain the defendant pursuant to the law, the inquiry official forwarded the case file to the prosecutor with opinion that the defendant should not be prosecuted with Section 112. However, he was still charged the defendant with Computer Crime Act, which the judge advocate and the military court had no authority to conduct the trial. The judge advocate thus sent the case file back to the inquiry official. Then, the inquiry official sent the request to abandon the remand in the military court by submitting the case file and requesting remand at the Criminal Court, at Ratchadaphisek Road, instead.
16 November 2018
The lawyer of “Sichon” submitted the bail request to the Criminal Court. The Criminal Court accepted the bail request and set the amount of bail which was 20,000 Bath. Also, the defendant must wear an electronic monitoring or EM.
21 January 2019
The witness hearing for the prosecutor
‘Sichon’ and his father including his lawyer and the prosecutor arrived at the courtroom No. 811 at the Criminal Court around 9.00 a.m. ‘Sichon’ sat with his father without talking to anyone, but he would look up and suddenly face down when somebody opened the door. As, today, the Court scheduled other defendants at the courtroom No. 811, many people thus waited in that room, so it was crowded. At around 9.40 a.m. the two judges approached to the bench. One of them asked a defendant that who else came to hear the verdict announcement, and then he asked them to go to another courtroom. After that, one of the judges standed up and walked to another courtroom whereas the other one proceeded on this trial.
Thawee testified that he was 59 years old, and he graduated with Bachelor degree and Master degree in Political Science, from Chulalongkorn University. Also, he has worked as a professor of Sukhothai Thammathirat University for 32 years. Moreover, he used to serve as a Dean of the Faculty of Political Science in 2004. He used to be a member of National Legislative Assembly (NLA) in 2006. He used to serve as Vice-Rector in 2016.
Cross-examination
The lawyer informed the prosecutor to send document containing Thawee’s testimony. The prosecutor answered that she will not submit document during the direct examination because Thawee had already testified during the investigation process. Therefore, the prosecutor did not need to submit it.
The lawyer asked that regarding the problematic Facebook post, there was no opinion expression, clicking Like button, or sharing yes or no. Thawee admitted that there was no opinion expression, but whether it was shared, he did not know. Normally, Facebook users would post message by using real name and surname or not. Thawee said he did not know. The lawyer asked that the defendant used real name and surname as a Facebook account name yes or no. Assistant Professor Thawee said he did not know. The lawyer showed him document and asked that the account which was used to post message was named ‘Sichon’ or not. Assistant Professor said yes.
The lawyer asked the defendant that when the police showed document, how he felt about it. Thawee said that after having seen, he felt negative and uncomfortable. The lawyer asked that there was a phenomenon that people raised up and violated laws or not. Thawee said that he was not sure because there were many events, so he had no idea whether it was relevant to the post of defendant.
‘Aod’ testified that when this situation happened, ‘Sichon’ was 29 years old. ‘Sichon’ graduated from a vocational college, but he did not study further because he wanted to work. ‘Sichon’ applied for job and worked for two times. ‘Aod’ testified it was odd that his son just worked in a short time, so he asked Sichon’s supervisor at the second workplace. He found out that ‘Sichon’ had mental illness. He talked with other people unmannerly, and he liked to talk about religion unstoppably. After he quitted from the second workplace, ‘Sichon’ did not work and stayed at home. ‘Aod’ testified that for Sichon’s behavior, while staying home, he kept talking about religion unstoppably. ‘Sichon’ talked about how bad religion was, and he cannot argue with Sichon. Also, ‘Sichon’ always said that he was beyond the religion, and he was a buddhist saint. According to Aod’s opinion, he viewed that ‘Sichon’ had mental illness.
‘Aod’ testified that personally, he did not use social media and never looked on Sichon’s Facebook account. ‘Aod’ testified that he installed 3BB internet for ‘Sichon’ because he wanted ‘Sichon’ to sell products on online. Later on, the police came to Sichon’s house, but he and ‘Sichon’ were not at home. Only his nephew waited at home. ‘Aod’ testified that he thought ‘Sichon’ was not guilty. The prosecutor gave ‘Aod’ document as an evidence and asked how he felt.
‘Aod’ looked document and answered that he was shocked because in the past, he always told ‘Sichon’ that he must not involve with the monarchy because his surname and Sichon’s surname were given by His Majesty. Also, his family and he were loyal to the Royal institution always. Therefore, he believed that ‘Sichon’ posted message due to other reasons.
Cross-examination
At 11.00 a.m. the Court finished the witness examination. The Court called the prosecutor and the lawyer to talk further. The Court told the lawyer that to not prosecute by 112 Section did not mean that the defendant did not violate Section 112 of Criminal Code. However, there was a policy that there would no prosecution by using this Section. For this case, the lawyer should not defend by sitting on fences because the law and the policy was irrelevant. At that time, the prosecutor called ‘Aod’ and asked that did he have anything to tell. ‘Aod’ stood in front of the judge and said that he had talked with the lawyer previously. The judge asked that if so, he would deny all charge or not. The lawyer said yes.
Verdict announcement
Later on, at 9.53 a.m. the judge approached to the bench. ‘Sichon’ stood up in order to hear verdict announcement. The judge told him to sit down and did not order to handcuff him as well. Also, he told the lawyer that the Court dismissed the offence according to Section 116, but offence according to the Computer Crime Act still left. The judge started to read verdict. It could be concluded that according to the prosecution according to Section 116 of Criminal Code and Section 14(3), (5) of Computer Crime Act, the defendant denied all charges. During witness examination, defendant’s father testified that the defendant had mental illness and was receiving treatment, but still was not getting better until now. For witness examination, the issue regarding defendant’s sickness that he posted during relapse was not attested.
For other witness examinations, it was not clear that while committing offence or posting that message which was the cause of prosecution, the defendant had no consciousness, but from evidences and witnesses, it could be believed that he still had some consciousness when he posted the message. Therefore, the Court sentenced that he was guilty according to Section 14(3) and (5) Computer Crime Act and was sentenced to imprisonment for three years. However, the sentence was reduced from three years to two years because of Section 65 of Criminal Code.
After having read verdict announcement, the judge told the lawyer, 'Sichon' and his father that this is just only the verdict of the court of the fisrt instance. 'Sichon' can appeal to the higher court to examine this case again. He also told ‘Sichon’ many times that “It would be fine. It would be ok.” He said further that “the correctional officer here should look after him.” After that, when the defendant and other relevant people signed document, the correctional officer took ‘Sichon’ to the basement of the Court immediately. Meanwhile, the lawyer and Sichon’s father proceeded on the the request for temporary release by using old collateral from the court of the first instance.
Note* According to Section 65, whenever any person commits an offence at the time of not being able to appreciate the nature, or illegality of his act or not being able to control himself on account of defective mind, mental disease or mental infirmity, such person shall not be punished for such offence. But, if the offender is still partially able to appreciate the nature or illegality of his act, or is still partially able to control himself, such person shall be punished for such offence, but the Court may inflict less punishment to any extent than that provided by the law for such offence.