Bangkok post, December 17, 2011
Some criticism of the Ah Kong lese majeste case is based on personal opinions only and has no basis in fact, says a spokesman for the Court of Justice.
Some critics have expressed concern about the judiciary's judgement, says Court of Justice spokesman Sitthisak Vanachakij, writing for Post Today newspaper.Criticism of the Criminal Court verdict "came like a flood that overwhelmed the court and the Thai justice system", and the court could no longer remain silent.
The court last month sentenced 61-year-old Ampon Tangnoppakul to 20 years in jail after finding him guilty of lese majeste and computer crimes.
The court found him guilty on four counts under two laws - Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code, widely known as the lese majeste law, and Section 14 of the Computer Crime Act. He was sentenced to five years in prison on each count.
Ampon, a Samut Prakan resident, is popularly known as "Uncle SMS" due to his case, or as "Ah Kong" - or grandpa - among acquaintances.
He was charged with sending four text messages with offensive content in May last year to the personal secretary of then-prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.
Mr Sitthisak said the court does not forbid people expressing honest opinions of its decisions as long as they are based on academic principle, legal basis, reason or even on personal beliefs as long as those people have access to the full information and evidence.
However, in the case of Uncle SMS, some negative comments were not based on access to full information and it would not be good for society if the court kept silent.
The public had raised the following points about the case:
- Ampon did not commit any crime. Why should he be jailed?
- Ampon's 20-year jail sentence is too severe.
- Ampon is a senior citizen and thus should have received leniency with a commuted jail term.
- The judiciary does not conform to international standards of freedom of expression.
Mr Sitthisak said those who believed Ampon did not commit any crime were merely expressing personal opinions with no justification or evidence to back their beliefs.
This case underwent the usual process starting with a police investigation. The police case was vetted by the public prosecutor, who decided to file charges with the court.
The trial conformed to international standards of justice, which allowed the accused to present evidence in court to back up his innocence, he said.
The court, after careful consideration of evidence presented by the public prosecutor and the accused, judged the accused did commit the crime.
If Ampon is not satisfied with the decision, he can appeal his case to the Appeals Court and after that to the Supreme Court.
It was not unheard of for the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court to disagree with the lower court's decision. In fact, Ampon may be presumed to be innocent until the case is closed.
In ordinary libel cases that cause severe loss of reputation, the Criminal Code prescribes a jail term, and the court occasionally issues a jail sentence without showing leniency.
In this case, harsh and vulgar words were used to express hostility towards Their Majesties the King and Queen. Under the constitution, the monarchy "is a revered institution that nobody can transgress".
As to whether Ampon's 20-year jail sentence is too severe, Mr Sitthisak said a prison term is prescribed for severe libel cases.
The offence was committed not once, but four times on different occasions, Ampon ridiculed the monarchy in the texts and expressed vengeance themes, which indicated disregard for the law without any moral compunction.
Since Ampon denied the charge, there was no reason for the judge to show mercy.
The Criminal Code's section 112 prescribes a jail term ranging from three to 15 years. The Computer Crime Act prescribes a jail term not more than five years.
The court's sentence of five years in jail for each offence was higher than the minimum three years jail term by two years, but still less than the maximum of 15 years by 10 years.
Since there are four instances of crimes, the accumulated sentence is 20 years. Those who know the evidence and the provision of the law may consider the Uncle SMS case as justified or even "light" when considering the nature of the crime, he said.
Mr Sitthisak argued that at 61, Ampon is not so old that he needs care, nor too old to understand and use modern technology.
He believed most people would not like such a person to walk free in society as others could fall victim to his actions.
The appropriate measure is to mete out punishment which sends a message to other malcontents not to emulate his behaviour.
For this reason, "age" cannot always be cited as a factor in favour of leniency.
The compelling factor for leniency is dependent on the nature of the crime and must be considered on a case by case basis.
Mr Sittisak said Thai law conforms to international standards on human rights but under a different political system.
Everyone has his own culture, loves his country and has faith in his religious leader, he said, adding that civilised people must not express contempt or ridicule towards other people's leaders, as that may escalate into national conflicts.
If Thais love the motherland, they should maintain its essential pillars, continued Mr Sitthisak.
Freedom of expression and criticism without prejudice are permissible as long as exercising such rights do not trespass on other people's rights, he told the newspaper.
Court faulted in Thaksin assets case
The Constitution Court's judgement in the Thaksin Shinawatra asset concealment case is one of the main causes of Thailand's bitter political conflict, says the Truth for Reconciliation Commission.
Its latest report found the primary cause of political division was the court's 2004 judgement in the asset concealment case in which Thaksin was accused of acting against Section 259 of the 1997 constitution, says Post Today.
The newspaper believes the commission's report is likely to carry weight, as the commission is widely accepted on both sides of the red and yellow shirt political divide. The commission is headed by former Attorney General Khanit na Nakorn.
Even though the commission was appointed by the Abhisit government, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra declared after winning the July 3 election that it could carry on with its work.
The commission had proposed recommendations that benefit both the red shirts and the yellow shirts, including backing bail for red shirt leaders.
This resulted in the court granting bail to prominent leaders such as Natthawut Saikua and Weng Tojirakarn.
In its report, the commission says the court's decision led to serious ambiguity regarding the rule of law.
"Law enforcement procedures were weak and inefficient, leading to the use of power outside the system to solve problems. Such solutions resulted in even more problems," said the report.
Seven judges found former prime minister Thaksin guilty, six found him innocent and two decided the case was not under the court's jurisdiction, so refrained from ruling.
But the court counted the two abstentions as not-guilty decisions. That took the number of not-guilty votes to eight, resulting in an eight to seven decision in favour of Thaksin.
The panel, which was set up after the April-May 2010 crackdowns, proposed the government examine the Thaksin asset concealment case according to the rule of law.
The panel also echoed previous recommendations that conventional criminal punishment not be applied to cases stemming from political violence.
The newspaper said that if the tribunal's ruling was truly the root of many social and political conflicts, the Pheu Thai-led government should think twice about pushing for an amnesty bill which includes Thaksin.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment