Uwazi

Court sentenced “Bright Shinnawat” to four months’ imprisonment for Contempt of Court for delivering a speech in front of the Criminal Court on 29 April 2021 without revoking his bail for the 19 September Rally case

8 June 2021 – the Ratchada Criminal Court scheduled an examination hearing for the case against Shinnawat “Bright” Chankrajang, a young activist from Nonthaburi province. He was charged with Contempt of Court for participating in the protest on 29 April 2021, demanding the Court to uphold the right to bail for Ratsadon Group leaders detained while awaiting trial for alleged violations of Article 112 of the Criminal Code (lèse-majesté).

Chawannat Thongsom, director of the Administrative Office of the Criminal Court, was the accuser in this case. The accusation report explains that on 29 April 2021, around 300 members of the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration joined an activity in which they submitted the letter of “royal injustice” to the Court and staged a public reading of the poem “Judicial Activism” on the staircase of the Criminal Court. During the event, they occasionally used an amplifier to shout out “Release our friends” among other phrases, thereby causing a disturbance inside the Criminal Court.

Shinnawat participated in the said demonstration and delivered a speech through the amplifier. In summary, he said that he would no longer respect the Court because Thai courts are murderers who fail to serve justice for democracy supporters. He further cursed those involved in incarcerating his fellow activists. Directly addressing the President of the Supreme Court, he stated that she must serve as the national guarantor of justice with the responsibility to ensure that the monarch governs Thailand’s democratic rule as the head of state within the remit defined by the constitution. The Court must recognize people’s rights and liberties and grant bail at the initial stage rather than authorize detention or postpone the consideration of bail requests. He questioned how the Court could be regarded as fair when those who carried out public activism for protecting national interests are put into jail, whereas those engaged in blatant corruption are still on the loose.

Meanwhile, the accused had filed a petition to the Court, denying all charges. The defense argued that Shinnawat only delivered the speech and participated in the rally at the Criminal Court’s staircase near the police’s fence. He did not use any force nor caused harm to the lives, liberties, or properties of the Court or anyone else. Moreover, his act of delivering the speech constituted a legitimate exercise of his freedom of expression; he merely criticized the use of judiciary powers that contradict the legal principle concerning temporary release in good faith. He was only arguing that the refusal of bail shall only occur for reasons laid out in Section 108/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Moreover, the demonstration was not organized in a manner that intends to delay the Court’s proceedings. On the contrary, the activity’s objective was to call for the Court to approve the bail requests from defendants in the case against activists involved in the “19 September: Return Power to the People” demonstration. On that day, there was no court trial either. The accused’s actions, therefore, did not constitute Contempt of Court.

Shinnawat further testified that he was also facing another charge of “insulting the Court” at the Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct for the same action. Like the case against him currently examined by the Criminal Court, this charge could result in criminal punishments. As the Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct has not yet delivered its decision, it could be said that the accused is facing double jeopardy.

Notes from the examination for the “Contempt of Court case” in Trial Room No. 805 At 10:00 am, Shinnawat and his lawyer arrived at Trial Room No. 805. The young activist was wearing a t-shirt screen-printed with the number “112” crossed out. The Court began the trial at 10:16 am by examining the accused and showing the videos capturing the demonstration to the accused. Then two witnesses were asked to take the stand, including Chawannat Thongsom, director of the Administrative Office of the Criminal Court (The accuser), and Shinnawat “Bright” Chankrajang (The accused).

The Court asked the accused if he had seen the videos of the demonstration recorded in the CDs submitted as evidence. Further, the Court inquired whether the videos were edited to distort the accused’s actions. Shinnawat admitted that he was the man in the videos and that they were not edited. However, they only captured some parts of what happened, not the entire activity.

The Court requested to confirm whether the videos recorded what really happened. Therefore, Shinnawat reiterated that the videos captured only some specific parts of what happened. Many other relevant activities were not present in the CD.

Then the Court inquired whether Shinnawat went on stage to give a speech or not. Shinnawat admitted that he really delivered the speech. His words quoted in the accusation report were also accurate. However, they were not all that he said on that day. The Court responded to Shinnawat, “The Court only cares about your insults, so the accusation report did not quote the entire speech.”

Shinnawat asked the Court back, “I would like your honor to ask about my feelings and motives driving me to say those things.” The Court replied that if Shinnawat disagreed with the ruling, he could file for an appeal at the Appeal Court or Supreme Court. Later, the Court showed Shinnawat the videos and turned on a high volume to help him identify the parts that were not his speech.

After watching the video, Shinnawat told the Court that the video only captured some sections of the activity. The Court then interrupted his statement and said Shinnawat should find a recording of the entire activity to show the Court his side of the story. Shinnawat then noted that even if the existing videos showed the actual occurrences, the Court should still be fair with him and incorporate complete footage into the list of evidence for this case.

The Court answered that the case is only concerned with insults and actions against the Court. However, if the accused wanted to object to the accusation, he must find evidence to show to the Court by himself. The accused’s failure to provide such proof prevents the Court from carrying out its duty as requested, and the Court would not allow the postponement of the trial on that day. The Court asserted that the examination must be carried out on that day only and the accused needed to secure evidence that demonstrates what happened. The Court’s only responsibility is to assess and rule whether the accused committed Contempt of Court while disorder took place in the Court’s premise.

Upon consultation with the accused, the defense lawyer affirmed the Court that the accused’s behavior did not constitute Contempt of Court. The Court then responded that the accused could exercise his full right to defend himself in court. Still, the Court would continue carrying out the examination to determine whether disorder took place in court. Meanwhile, Shinnawat attempted to request the Court to examine the motive behind his actions, not just the facts about what he did.

The defense lawyer also asked the Court for an opportunity for the accused to clarify his motive because he could face criminal punishment if found guilty. The Court, however, insisted that the accused needed to find his own evidence to demonstrate his sides of the story about what happened on that day. Then the Court of Justice’s Director-General will provide their opinions about the next steps and potential punishment for the accused. Finally, the Court compared the Director-General to a house owner and the judge to a homemaker. It further revealed that the director of the Administrative Office of the Criminal Court was the one who filed an incident report about the demonstration to the Director-General of the Criminal Court.

First witness: Chawannat Thongsom, Director of the Administrative Office of the Criminal Court, (The accuser) At 11:04 am, the Court began examining Chawannat Thongsom, Director of the Administrative Office of the Criminal Court, as the first witness. Chawanat stated that the incident took place during the day on 29 April 2021. On that day, the bail applications were filed for defendants charged for alleged violations of Article 112 (Black Criminal Case No. Aor 287/64), including Parit “Penguin” Chiwarak, Panassaya “Rung” Sitthijirawattanakul, and Chai-amorn “Ammy” Kaewwiboonpan. The United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration posted on their social media accounts about this event and invited the followers come to the Court to give the three activists moral support. They planned on hosting activity to submit the letter of “royal injustice” to the Director-General of the Criminal Court and staged a public reading of the poem called “Judicial Activism.”

At around noon, a group of approximately 300 people gathered in the zone adjacent to the Criminal Court’s ground floor. Later, they started to use an amplifier to create deafening noises. As a result, Pol. Lt. Col. Sakchai Kraiweeradechachai, Deputy Superintendent for Crime Suppression at Pahon Yothin Police Station, intervened and informed the protestors about the current situation of the COVID-19 outbreak and legal requirements under the Emergency Decree. However, the protestors refused to listen to the authorities.

Later, Pol Col Prasopchok Iampinij, Superintendent of Pahon Yothin Police Station, made another announcement, asking the protestors to maintain order and only exercised their freedom within the scope of the Court’s permission. Still, the protestors denied cooperation with the authorities and continued their demonstration using the amplifier to give political speeches.

After a series of disorderly events took place, the inquiry team of Pahon Yothin Police Station carried out an investigation and remarked in their inquiry report that the perpetrators violating the laws on that day included Benja Apan, Shinnawat Chankrajang, and Natchanon Pairoj.

The Court asked the witness about what each of the accused did. The witness said that Benja threw pamphlets on the Court’s floor, ran up and down the Court’s staircase, and delivered a speech recorded in the videos and the police’s inquiry report.

The witness stated further that Shinnawat was one of the accused persons in this case. He was standing among the crowd of protestors in front of the Criminal Court, using a loudspeaker to say vulgar words, according to the inquiry report of Pahon Yothin Police Station, as well as the existing video recordings. The Court asked what Shinnawat said about the Court on that day. The witness then referred to Shinnawat’s statement documented in the accusation report, which writes, “On 30 April 2021, I will visit this Criminal Court and will no longer have any respect for the Court.” She added that he insulted the Court by calling it a “murderer,” according to the inquiry report of Pahon Yothin Police Station and the video recordings.

After receiving the report from Pahon Yothin Police Station, the witness informed and showed to the Director-General of the Criminal Court some photographs and two CDs with video recordings of this incident: one with a video recorded by Pahon Yothin Police Station and the other with another clip from the Criminal Court. Then the Director-General of the Criminal Court issued an order to call for an investigation into this case and initiate Contempt of Court charges.

The witness asserted that she had an obligation to inform the Director-General of the Criminal Court about this incident. After examining the inquiry report of Pahon Yothin Police Station, together with recordings inside the two CDs, she concluded that the accused caused a disturbance for the Court. She is directly responsible for taking care of this matter; therefore, she reported to the Director-General about what happened. She also noted she pressed Contempt of Court charges against six people involved in this rally. The examination hearings for some of the accused have been postponed. At the time, none of the hearings for Contempt of Court cases linked to the demonstration on that day has finished.

In response to the defense’s cross-examination, the witness acknowledged that the video recordings showed that the accused remained outside the Court’s premise while delivering the speech because an iron fence was guarding the venue. However, she argued that he was standing next to the iron fence near the Court’s pillars without walking up the staircase. Furthermore, according to the video recordings inside the CDs and the police’s inquiry report, the accused used vulgar language in his speech and stood with a group of around 300 protestors. Furthermore, even if the bail requests were not considered in trial on that day, the Court was administering other trials at the time of the rally.

The witness admitted to the defense lawyer that the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration came to the Court to submit its letter with a list of signatures to request the Court to grant bail for Parit and Panussaya. She also heard news reports about Parit’s symptoms that his stomach began to digest his body tissue due to his decision to go on hunger strike to call for the Court to grant bail for pro-democracy activists. However, she said she did not know whether the reports were accurate.

When the lawyer asked of the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration’s letter to the Court, which states that Parit might pass away if the Court continues to deny bail, the witness responded that she had not seen the letter. She further remarked that she did not know what the letter said because the Court did not send any representative to accept the letter. Later, the lawyer showed her the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration’s letter of “royal injustice” and a list of signatures to ask her if it was the document that Ms. Benja was throwing or not. Again, the witness said she did not know because the documents were not attached in the inquiry report, and she was not present at the incident.

The defense lawyer asked whether it was true that Parit’s mother went up to the fence and was told by court officials that she had to tell other protestors to leave the Court’s front area. Otherwise, the Court would not read its verdict. The witness said she was unsure whether the court officials received an order to do so because she did not speak with the Director-General about this matter. The lawyer followed up, asking whether Parit’s mother was requested to negotiate with the protestors. The witness said the authorities made such a request because of the disorder that took place at the time.

On the evening of that day, the witness added that she was not in the court area because she was working from home. Therefore, she did not know that there was any turmoil. However, there are video recordings in the CDs that could confirm that. When she arrived at the Court at 4:00 pm, the situation in front of the Court had de-escalated and become calm. The protestors were only waiting to hear whether the Court would grant bail. Meanwhile, some were still using the amplifier to deliver speeches outside the fenced area of the Court. Thus, she asked Parit’s mother to negotiate with them. According to her, once Parit’s mother did so, these protestors stopped their activity, and the peace was restored.

The witness informed the defense lawyer she did not notice whether Shinnawat was outside the fence when she arrived at the Court. She was doing work at her desk and did not walk to the front area of the Court. Therefore, she could not see what was going on in the rally. However, she saw his speech from the videos taken by Pahon Yothin Police Station and the Criminal Court.

The lawyer asked why the witness charge him in two separate cases with Contempt of Court and insulting the court for the same action. As the director of the criminal court’s office, the witness said that she has no power to initiate a Contempt of Court charge. Her only responsibility was to report to the Director-General. It was the Director-General’s decision to order the Court to press this charge.

Upon examining case documents, the lawyer shared that the defense found that Pahon Yothin Police Station submitted its inquiry report to the Office of the Court of Justice. Therefore, the witness was asked whether the police submitted the report with the intention to prosecute those involved in the incident with Contempt of Court. The witness admitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Pahon Yothin Police Station submitted an inquiry report to the Office of the Court of Justice. However, the witness said she was unsure whether the Office of the Court of Justice had previously filed a Contempt of Court charge to Pahon Yothin Police Station or not because it was not within her realm of responsibility.

Witness No. 2: Shinnawat Chankrajang (The accused) Before the accused begin testifying, the defense lawyer requested the Court to examine two witnesses, including Shinnawat (the accused) and Sureerat Chiwarak, Parit’s mother. Nonetheless, the Court denied the request and asserted that it only wanted to examine Witness No. 2 about the facts of what happened on that day. The Court only wanted to assess whether there was a disturbance of peace and report back to the Director-General, who would decide whether the defendant was guilty. The Court has no actual authority to rule on this case.

The Court asked Shinnawat if he was the person captured on camera in the videos on the CD and if he delivered a speech on that day. If so, the Court also wanted to know why he took those actions. Shinnawat admitted that he was in the incident, and the recordings were real. However, what appears in the videos on the CD does not capture the entire event. They lacked many factual elements that could have explained how the event unfolded. Before the witness began using vulgar language to curse at the Court, several incidents stirred the frustrations and anger of the protestors. Still, they were missing from the videos.

The witness further contended that the Court should have sent a representative to come down from the office and accept the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration’s letter. That hypothetical decision could have prevented the crowd from using insults against the Court or engaging in disturbance of the peace. He claimed that he used vulgar language because he did not want anyone to weaponize the Court. He would like the Court to uphold its gracious independence. When the witness spoke of the Court, he would often say that the Court need not take his side. The Court only should serve justice and carry out the legal proceedings properly.

When the witness was standing with other protestors on that day, they remained outside the Court and did not break into the fenced area. The amplifier used on that day was a small, portable one. Their size was not big. The witness did not know that it was prohibited to deliver political speeches and stage an assembly outside the Criminal Court. Therefore, he did not anticipate that his speech delivery outside the court building would constitute Contempt of Court.

He continued explaining that he got angry because he saw Judge Chanatip Muanpawong walked down to the ground floor of the Criminal Court. The judge also got into arguments with the protestors, thus escalating tension and leading to turmoil during the demonstration. The lack of clarity on whether the three activists would receive bail led to even greater disorder.

Judge Chanatip had an infamous record of denying bail requests and arguing with protestors. Therefore, the witness viewed his appearance as an attempt to escalate the situation and disturb the peaceful demonstration. The witness said he yelled out, “Murderer Court” because he saw a recent news report about Parit’s health conditions before attending the rally. Reportedly, Parit had fallen sick because of his hunger strike that caused his stomach to digest his own body tissue, leading to rectal bleeding. There were also news reports about the spread of COVID-19 in prison. The witness was concerned that if Parit did not receive bail, he might die in prison.

The witness asked the Court to examine the video clips thoroughly, and the Court would realize that his speech was well-intended. He insisted that he did not want the Court to receive more negative criticisms.

The witness answered the lawyer that he arrived at the Court at around 1:30 pm. At that time, the Court’s gate on the Ratchada Road side did not have any fence, and the authorities did not block anyone from entering the building. Around 100 people were waiting inside the Court, not 300 people as claimed by the accuser during her testimony. When he arrived at the Criminal Court, some protestors were already using the amplifier. He did not know to whom it belonged.

The witness spoke about the causes of the turmoil during the demonstration. He told the defense lawyer the protestors were not simply angered by Chanatip’s presence in front of the Criminal Court. There was another incident taking place simultaneously. At around 2:00 or 3:00 pm, a court official approached and told the protestors that the Court would not deliver its ruling if they did not leave the area. This order angered the crowd deeply.

Normally, the Court would send a representative to accept any petition letters from external parties. Thus, the defense lawyer asked the witness whether it was true that no one agreed to receive the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration’s letter. The witness said that he heard that a representative would come down from their office to receive an external letter to the Court in other cases. However, this time, nobody agreed to do so.

In response to the lawyer’s question about the charge of insulting the Court from the same incident, the witness said that this case remains in the remand stage, and he has denied all charges.

Lastly, the witness said that he knew Parit’s mother and saw her exiting the Criminal Court on the evening of that day. When the crowd got smaller, she told the protestors to leave the area in front of the Court, move outside the Court’s, and return home. The protestors agreed to follow the request from Parit’s mother.

At 12:30 pm, the Court finished examining both witnesses and scheduled for delivering the verdict at 2:00 pm.

Court sentenced the defendant to four months’ imprisonment without any suspension, stating that his references to the Court were vulgar and showed defiance of the law At around 2:20 pm, at Trial Room No. 805, Shinnawat was waiting to hear the Court’s verdict. Somyot Pruksakasemsuk also observed the trial in that afternoon because he was also one of the defendants charged with Contempt of Court from the same demonstration. Therefore, he would like to know how the procedures were. The trial room officials requested all observers to sit apart from one another as part of the Court’s social distancing measures.

Later, at 2:40 pm, the Court delivered its ruling, which indicated that the defendant used vulgar language to express contempt against the Court, and his actions showed defiance of the law. Therefore, the Court found him guilty of Sections 30 – 33 of the Criminal Procedure Code and sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment without any suspension.

The Court asked the Department of Corrections to immediately prepare to detain the defendant before bringing him to Trial Room No. 703 to consider whether to revoke his bail for another case.

Court decided not to revoke the defendant’s bail for the “19 September: Return Power to the People Demonstration” case, citing no impact from his conviction on the factual elements of the other case. However, a bail condition was added to prohibit him from participating in activities causing public disorder

At Trial Room No. 703, the Court only permitted Shinnawat’s family members, including his wife and toddler son, lawyer, and other observers, to attend the trial. Inside the room, there were four court police officers and one security guard. The Court began the trial at 3:23 pm. The lawyer started by informing the Court that the defense will appeal the Court’s decision to sentence Shinnawat to four months’ imprisonment for Contempt of Court, mainly because the defendant is facing double jeopardy from another case in which he was charged with insulting the Court. Moreover, the defendant said that he did not violate any bail conditions for the “19 September: Return Power to the People Demonstration” case because he had already paid the surety of 35,000 THB without agreeing to any additional requirements. This case also has nothing to do with the Contempt of Court case.

Later, the Court decided not to revoke Shinnawat’s bail for the 19 September 2021 case. It assessed that even though the defendant was found guilty of Contempt of Court, the decision to revoke bail must follow the rationales laid out in Section 108/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Notably, the defendant’s commission of Contempt of Court is not related to the judicial proceedings in the other case, therefore not impeding its trial. The offenses in both cases are also different, so it could be determined that the defendant may cause another danger of a similar nature. For these reasons, the Court decided not to revoke his bail.

The Court maintained its decision to allow for Shinnawat’s provisional release for the “19 September: Return Power to the People Demonstration” case. However, it added one condition prohibiting him from participating in any rallies that may cause public disorder.

For the Contempt of Court case, the defense lawyer filed for bail while the case remains pending appeal. Shortly after, at 4:00 pm, the Court granted bail for him upon providing the surety of 10,000 THB from the Ratsadonprasong Fund.

This is Shinnawat’s second Contempt of Court case. Previously, on 31 May 2021, the Court sentenced him and “Ford Red Path” Anurak Jentawanich to 15 days’ imprisonment and a 500-THB fine per person. Nonetheless, their sentences were suspended. In this case, their alleged violations occurred when they took photos of the courtroom while waiting for the judge to begin the indictment trial of the “19 September: Return Power to the People Demonstration” case on 8 March 2021.

According to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) ‘s documentation record, from the beginning of the Free Youth Group’s demonstration to May 2021, at least 13 people have been charged with Contempt of Court in 13 cases, and at least 20 people with insulting the Court in three cases. Among these cases, seven Contempt of Court cases stemmed from the demonstrations on 29 and 30 April 2021, which called for the right to bail for Ratsadon leaders held in pre-trial detention. Today, the Court finished the examination and delivered its ruling for only one case against Shinnawat.

The student activist group Bad Student staged a protest at the Ministry of Education to call for gender equality and LGBTQ rights in the school system. The protest took place at 15.45 on Friday (18 June) and was broadcast live on Bad Student’s Facebook page. The group staged a performance symbolizing discrimination against LGBTQ students in Thai schools, and wrapped a rainbow Pride flag around the statue of King Vajiravudh in front of the Ministry building.

Police officers stationed in the area then pulled down the flag and pushed the group and reporters covering the event off the lawn in front of the building. Voice Online reported that the participant who climbed up the base of the statue to wrap it with the Pride flag was detained by two officers, who tried to take them away. However, the rest of the group stopped the officers and told them that they must state the charges before they can arrest the participant. The officers were not able to state the charges, and the participant was released.

On Saturday (19 June), Ministry spokesperson Kesthip Supawanich said that the group’s action has angered many people, and that the Ministry has communicated with other relevant agencies and found that the participant who wrapped the flag around the statue was 22 years old and is therefore not a minor and no longer in the school system. Kesthip said that the Ministry will be proceeding with the next steps against the group, and said that the students will not be allowed to hold another event inside the Ministry grounds.

Bad Student then issued a statement on their Facebook page condemning police officers for using excessive force against the participants and the Ministry for caring more about a statue than school safety, as the event was held to demand that the Ministry solve the issue of gender-based discrimination and violations of human rights against LGBTQ students in Thai schools.

“Gender diversity is no harm to anyone. If the Ministry of Education does not understand this principle, and even sees that gender diversity as a threat, it means that the Ministry of Education does not support gender diversity. If even the Ministry of Education is like this, how could there be gender equality in schools?” said the group. The group faced some obstacles before the beginning of the event. After group representatives met in front of the Ministry at 15.45, Ministry security personnel closed the gates, preventing the rest of their team from entering the Ministry grounds. Around 15 minutes later, around 20 uniformed police officers from Dusit Police Station began lining up in front of the Ministry.

Dusit Police Station Superintendent Pol Col Jatuphon Phonphakdi came to negotiate with the group and asked them to take their activities outside, telling them that they have to ask for permission before organizing an event on Ministry grounds. A representative of the group said that they have already communicated with Education Minister Trinuch Thienthong, who allowed the gates to be open. However, a Ministry official said that the group is still not allowed to hold their event inside the Ministry. After the group refused to leave, Pol Col Jatuphon threatened them with legal prosecution. Meanwhile, plainclothes officers took pictures of the participants. They were finally allowed to stage their performance after they spoke to the Education Permanent Secretary, who allowed them to stay on the Ministry grounds until 18.30.

The event concluded at 18.45, while around 10 police officers were still surrounding King Vajiravudh’s statue.

Chaiamorn “Ammy” Kaewwiboonpan, lead singer of pop band The Bottom Blues, is facing another royal defamation charge for singing a modified version of his song “1 2 3 4 5 I love you” at a protest in front of the Thanyaburi Provincial Court in January 2021. Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported yesterday (7 June) that Chaiamorn and activist Phromsorn Weerathamjare face royal defamation charges under Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code for their participation in the 14 January 2021 protest in front of the Thanyaburi Provincial Court to demand the release of student activist Sirichai Natueng, who was arrested in the middle of the night on 13 January 2021 on a royal defamation charge for spray-painting portraits of members of the royal family.

During the protest, Chaiamorn and Phromsong sang a modified version of Chaiamorn’s song “1 2 3 4 5 I love you,” which has become one of the songs most commonly used in protests, often with the “I love you” in the refrain replaced with “Fuck you Too [Prayut Chan-o-cha]” or “Free our friends.”

TLHR reported that according to the police, participants during the 14 January 2021 protest replaced “I love you” with “Fuck you […].” TLHR did not disclose what the final word was, but said the police deemed that the modified lyrics were insulting to the king.

Phromsorn reported to Thanyaburi Police Station yesterday (7 June) and denied all charges, while Chaiamorn said he was unavailable and instead reported to the police today (8 June).

TLHR reported later today (8 June) that the public prosecutor has filed a case against the two activists. This is the 17th royal defamation case in which the public prosecutor has ordered an indictment since the law began to be used against pro-democracy protesters in November 2020.

The Thanyaburi Provincian Court granted bail for Promsorn and Chaiamorn with a security of 300,000 baht each. The court also required them to sign a letter promising not to run or tamper with evidence.

Chaiamorn posted on his band’s Facebook page yesterday (7 June) that this is “the first pop song to be charged under Section 112” and that he was notified of the charges while he was still being detained pending trial in another royal defamation charge at the Thanyaburi Remand Prison. He was in detention for 69 days before he was released on 11 May 2021 on condition that he does not participate in activities which are damaging to the monarchy – the same condition imposed on several activists charged under Section 112 and released on bail.

Phromsorn is facing a total of 3 counts of royal defamation relating to political expression, while Chaiamorn is facing 2.

Three journalists from the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB) were sentenced to seven months in jail and fined for entering Thailand illegally on May 28. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) urges Thai authorities to not deport the journalists and to support their efforts for political asylum.

The Democratic Voice of Burma was one of the first news organisations to be shut down by the military coup in March, following the military coup in Myanmar on February 1. The three journalists fled the country, but were consequently arrested during a police search in the northern city of Chiang Mai on May 9.

The three DVB journalists, along with their two other associates, were sentenced to seven months imprisonment and a 4,000 baht (USD 128) fine each.

Nadthasiri Bergman, a lawyer with the Human Rights Development Foundation (HRDF), told AFP that "By law, they can be deported within 72 hours." However, Bergman quickly added that because of the appeal letter the HRDF sent, immigration authorities could not deport them immediately.

On April 24, an ASEAN Summit on Myanmar took place, where the leaders of eight Southeast nations congregated to discuss the Myanmar political crisis but Thailand’s Prime Minister, Prayut Chan-O-Cha, was not in attendance. News reports suggested this was linked to the Royal Thai Army’s close relations with the military establishment in Myanmar.

ASEAN has continued in its principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of its members. Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and thus there is no legislation governing the treatment of refugees.

Since the February 1 coup, more than 80 journalists are among the more than 5,500 people arrested or detained by Myanmar’s security forces. Many remain in detention, amongst widespread accounts of torture and extrajudicial killings.

Student activist Parit Chiwarak is now facing 20 counts under the lèse majesté law, after complaints were filed against him for Facebook posts he made about King Vajiralongkorn’s divorce from his ex-wife Sujarinee Vivacharawongse, and the use of Sanam Luang for funerals. Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that Parit went to the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) on Tuesday (15 June) to hear the charges, after complaints were filed against him by Nopadol Prompasit, a member of the Thailand Help Center for Cyberbullying Victims, an online royalist group whose members have filed numerous lèse majesté charges against many netizens, claiming in one post that they have filed complaints with the TCSD against 90 people for posts made on Queen Suthida’s birthday which they see as insulting against the Queen.

The complaints against Parit were filed on 11 January 2021 and are related to two Facebook posts he made in December 2020. The first was on 8 December 2020 about King Vajiralongkorn’s divorce from his ex-wife Sujarinee Vivacharawongse, who now lives in the United States in exile with her four sons.

He also called for Princess Sirivannavari, the King's younger daughter, not to use taxpayer’s money to promote her fashion brand, and included in the post a link to a voice clip rumoured to be that of the king saying “I know I’m bad.”

The second post was on 31 December 2020 and mentioned how funerals are allowed to be held at Sanam Luang but people are not allowed to sell shrimp, referring to the shrimp sale organized by the volunteer protest guard group We Volunteer on 31 December 2020 which was dispersed by police.

Since the reign of King Rama I, which began in 1782, the area now known as Sanam Luang has been used as cremation sites for the funerals of kings, queens, and high-ranking members of the royal family.

Parit faces charges under the lèse majesté law, or Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code, and the Computer Crimes Act. He denied all charges and requested that Sujarinee and her sons be brought in as witnesses and to have them testify on why they had to leave the country, who is involved in their exile, and whether they wish to return to Thailand.

This is Parit’s 20th count under the lèse majesté law. According to TLHR, at least 100 people are now facing lèse majesté charges since November 2020, 8 of whom are less than 18 years old.

Thai authorities should immediately and unconditionally drop insulting the monarchy and other politically motivated charges against children who peacefully express their opinions, Human Rights Watch said today.

On May 24, 2021, the Central Juvenile and Family Court informed 17-year-old Thanakorn Phiraban that he has been indicted on lese majeste (insulting the monarchy) charges related to his speech at a pro-democracy rally on December 6, 2020, in Bangkok. Under Thailand’s draconian article 112 of the Criminal Code, Thanakorn faces 3 to 15 years in prison if found guilty.

“By punishing outspoken children with lese majeste charges, the Thai authorities are seeking to intimidate peaceful critics by demonstrating that they will all be harshly punished regardless of their age,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “These senseless, rights-abusing charges should immediately be dropped against Thanakorn and all others peacefully expressing their views.”

The number of lese majeste cases in Thailand has significantly increased in the past year. After almost a three-year hiatus in which lese majeste prosecutions were not brought before the courts, in November 2020 Prime Minister Gen. Prayut Chan-ocha ordered the authorities to resume lese majeste prosecutions because of growing criticisms of the monarchy. Since then, officials have charged at least 82 people with lese majeste crimes in relation to various activities at pro-democracy rallies or comments on social media. Six of them are children, under age 18.

In a February 8 statement on the situation in Thailand, United Nations human rights experts said that lese majeste laws have “no place in a democratic country.” They also expressed serious concerns about the growing number of lese majeste prosecutions and harsh prison sentences the courts in Thailand have meted out to some defendants.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Thailand has ratified, protects the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. General Comment 34 of the Human Rights Committee, the international expert body that monitors compliance with the covenant, specifically states that laws such as those for lese majeste “should not provide for more severe penalties solely on the basis of the identity of the person that may have been impugned” and that governments “should not prohibit criticism of institutions.”

Children from middle school and high school have become commonplace at most pro-democracy rallies across Thailand, even giving speeches onstage. Groups such as the Bad Students have held their own rallies on school grounds and occasionally conducted street protests. But despite concerns publicly raised by the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and human rights groups, the Thai authorities continue to punish children for expressing views, participating in peaceful public rallies, and otherwise taking part in activities to demand democratic reforms.

The Thai Lawyers for Human Rights has reported that at least 41 children have been charged for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly since the youth-led pro-democracy rallies started in July 2020. Many other children have faced various forms of intimidation by the authorities to try to stop them from taking part in political activity or making critical comments about the government and the monarchy. The government’s actions violate Thailand’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which ensures children’s rights to participate in peaceful protests and to express their opinions.

“Thai authorities should not be suppressing the voices of Thailand’s children expressing their views and demanding democratic reforms,” Adams said. “Instead of responding to children’s appeals with prosecutions, the authorities should listen to their views, and protect their rights to express their opinions without fear or intimidation.”

A 14-year-old girl (name withheld) has been summonsed by the police in Phitsanulok on a royal defamation charge under Section 112 of the Criminal Code.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported last Friday (28 May) that the girl received a summons from Mueang Phitsanulok Police Station on a Section 112 charge and is required to report to the police on 1 June.

The complaint was filed against her by former Action Coalition for Thailand (ACT) MP candidate Nangnoi Assawakittikorn, who has previously filed complaints under Section 112 against activists Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul, Anon Nampa, Panupong Jadnok, and Parit Chiwarak. She has also filed a libel complaint against a Facebook user for calling her a “slave of the dictator”.

The girl told Voice Online that a police officer delivered the summons to her house and it was received by her father. She said she does not know why the complaint was filed and does not know Nangnoi personally.

She also said that during the protests in Phitsanulok in 2020, she made comments about the royalist groups who were against the protests. One of her friends then commented about Nangnoi, who saw the comment. Even though she said the comment was not directly to do with Nangnoi, the girl was told by Nangnoi to meet at the police station.

Police officers then contacted her and told her that a Section 112 complaint had been filed against her, but did not show her an arrest warrant or a summons, so she decided not to speak to the officers until she received the summons last Friday (28 May).

Special Branch police also contacted the girl’s mother on 23 February, asking to discuss with her about sharing Facebook posts about the monarchy. The officers wanted the girl to delete the posts, saying that she would face no charges if she did so.

The girl said that she is surprised that an adult would press a politically motivated charge against a minor, and even use Section 112. However, she said that she will enter the judicial process and has already contacted a lawyer. She is likely to ask to postpone her appointment with the police, as her lawyer is unavailable on that day.

Accord to TLHR, the girl is the 7th person under the age of 18 to face charges under Section 112.

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha's lawyer has filed a report with the police against Suthipongse 'Heart' Thatphithakkul under the lèse majesté law and the Computer Crime Act. Suthipongse, a famous Thai singer with a political profile, is one among many who have been charged for speaking out against the government's vaccine policy.

Seksakon Atthawong, also known as Rambo Isan, assistant to the Minister of the Office of the Prime Minister, threatened on 15 May that the matter could be withdrawn if Suthipongse truly loves the monarchy and wants to help the country.

According to the Thai legal system, a criminal charge cannot be withdrawn unless a suspect is proven innocent. Suthipongse’s case was reported on 13 May at Nang Loeng Police Station, together with evidence of his Facebook post criticizing the government's Covid-19vaccine policy.

“The medicine of the boss is not selling. The stock is not moving. The lackeys have to come out to help with the marketing (I copied this from someone else) #vaccine monopoly, unless you are really ruthless, cannot be done," said one of the Facebook posts which made him a suspect under the lèse majesté law and the Computer Crime Act.

Apiwat Kantong, the Prime Minister’s lawyer, said that the term “boss” might refer to the monarchy and even if it was copied from someone else it might still constitute disinformation and lèse majesté.

After Suthipongse was reported to the police, he posted on Facebook asking ”how come that the Prime Minister sues the people?”

In a separate Facebook post, Suthipongse asked the government to drop the charges because he ran out of money to hire lawyers. Suthipongse also said that he was not interested in entering politics and the government may even get his help if it talks to him nicely.

Who is Heart? Suthipongse ‘Heart’ Thatphithakkul was a famous singer in Thailand. After he earned a Bachelor of Economics from the University of California at Los Angeles, and a Master of Economics from the University of Southern California, he returned to Thailand not only as a singer, but also as an economic analyst and famous TV host on many channels and programmes.

Suthipongse entered politics briefly in June 1997 when he became an executive committee member of the Prachakorn Thai Party under Samak Sundaravej as the party leader. However, he was disqualified from the party only 6 months later.

At the time, Prachakorn Thai was an important player in the Thai political landscape. After Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh resigned from the premiership because of the financial crisis in 1997, Prachakorn Thai defected from Chavalit’s New Aspiration Party coalition and forged a new government led by the Democrat Party with Chuan Leekpai as the Prime Minister.

In 2015 (one year after the military coup by Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha), Suthipongse invited Anutin Charnvirakul to sing a song in his show “Byrd & Heart” which he made with his old colleague Kulpong “Byrd” Bunnag. Anutin became Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Health in the current government after the election in 2019.

In 2018, Suthipongse revealed that he had 3 wives and 7 children.

When the protests erupted in Thailand, he became more vocal against Prayut Chan-o-cha’s government. In 2019, Narisroj Fuangrabil, former Thai ambassador to Argentina who posted on Facebook against the pro-democracy protesters, filed a report with police against Suthipongse for defamation after Suthipongse criticized him in a comment on the Facebook page of political exile Pavin Chachavalpongpun.

Suthipongse gave Narisroj flowers and apologized so the case was withdrawn.

Not the only one Suthipongse is not the only one to criticize the government’s vaccine policy who now faces legal charges.

On 18 January, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit of the Progressive Movement went Live on Facebook with a presentation on “The Royal Vaccine: Whose benefit, Whose loss?” Thanathorn was charged with violating the lèse majesté law and the Computer Crime Act on 21 January by the Prime Minister’s lawyer Apiwat.

On Facebook Live, Thanathorn said that although there were many vaccine providers, the Thai government bought only from AstraZeneca and Sinovac and in insufficient quantities because the government wanted to support Siam Bioscience Co. Ltd. Nikkei Asia reports that King Vajiralongkorn owns all but 2 of the company’s shares.

On 25 January, student protesters led by Benja Apan and Parit Chiwarak held an activity at the Srijulsup Building, where Siam Bioscience’s registered office is located, to publicize the problems surrounding the government’s vaccine policy. They too face 4 charges under the lèse majesté law, the Emergency Decree, the Communicable Diseases Act, and the Advertisement by Using Sound Amplifiers Control Act.

On 25 January, 5 students and citizens in Lampang Province were also served with summons as suspects under the lèse majesté law for displaying a banner which said “Budget for monarchy > Covid-19 vaccines.” The suspects were named as Phinit Thongkham, Wannaphon Hutakowit, Phattharakan Khaengkhan, Yupadee Kulkittanon), and Wan (alias).

In February 2021, a female student from Rajabhat University, Chiang Rai, and an admin of the page “Free Youth - CEI” was arrested under the lèse majesté law and the Computer Crime Act for sharing the “budget for monarchy > Covid-19 vaccines” banner on Facebook. Police believe that she was involved in hanging the banner near to King Vajiralongkorn’s portrait.

On 3 March, Piyarat Chongthep, a leading activist of the We Volunteer group, was detained in Kalasin Remand Prison on charges under the lèse majesté law and the Computer Crime Act for 7 protest signs against the government’s vaccine policy and for his social media posts of the protest signs. After 33 days in detention, he was allowed bail with a security of 200,000 baht.

The mother of student activist Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul has received a police summons on a charge under the Emergency Decree, after she joined a protest demanding her daughter’s release

Panusaya posted a picture of the summons on her Facebook page yesterday (19 May). The summons states that her mother violated the Emergency Decree by organizing an unauthorised gathering of more than 20 people at risk of the spread of disease, after she joined the “Stand Against Detention” protest in front of the Supreme Court on Ratchadamnoen Avenue on 28 April 2021 to demand the release of Panusaya and other activists who were detained at the time.

The “Stand Against Detention” protests were organised by the activist group Resistant Citizens to demand the release of activists being detained pending trial on charges relating to the recent pro-democracy protests and have been held continuously since 22 March 2021 at various locations across Bangkok. Similar events have also been held in other provinces.

According to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), no other participants in the “Stand Against Detention” protest have so far been charged with violating the Emergency Decree.

However, TLHR reported today (20 May) that two other people have received a police summons for participating in one of the “Stand Against Detention” protests: activist Punsak Srithep, a member of Resistant Citizen and whose son Samapan was killed during the the military crackdown on red shirt protesters in May 2010; and another protester named Napatsorn Boonrey.

Panusaya said in her post that participants in the protest kept a distance from each other. Resistant Citizen also required registration for each protest and only 20 participants were allowed.

Panusaya was granted bail and released on 6 May, after she had been in detention for 74 days. 7 people are currently still detained pending trial on charges relating to political expression.

Thai authorities should immediately investigate the killing of Somsak Onchuenjit, a lawyer and land rights activist, in Trang province in southern Thailand, Human Rights Watch said today. Successive Thai governments have failed to prevent or adequately respond to attacks against human rights defenders who represent landless farmers.

On May 4, 2021, at about 7:40 a.m., an unidentified gunman fatally shot Somsak, 54, while he was working in a rubber plantation near his home in Trang province’s Wangviset district. Somsak had recently told his family that he had been followed and was receiving death threats. But local authorities had neither investigated the threats nor arranged any measures to protect him.

“Thai authorities should not just stand by while grassroots activists in southern provinces are being murdered for standing up for their communities,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The Thai government should urgently conduct a credible and impartial investigation and bring those responsible for Somsak’s death to justice.”

Somsak had led a campaign for the right to agricultural land for poor villagers in his district. Over the past five months, conflicts in the area have intensified between local villagers who occupied oil palm plantations that no longer have valid leases with government agencies and private companies backed by local politicians. Community members told Human Rights Watch that police investigations into Somsak’s murder so far appear half-hearted and ineffectual.

During the past decade, at least five land rights activists in southern Thailand have been killed. All were leaders in campaigns seeking community ownership of agricultural land used by palm oil companies in which the lease with the government for the land had expired. The police have not made any serious progress in any of these cases. Meanwhile, the remaining activists constantly face harassment, physical intimidation, and a barrage of lawsuits filed by palm oil companies.

The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders calls on governments to take all necessary measures to protect human rights defenders against violence, threats, retaliation, and other abuses because of their work. International law recognizes government accountability for failing to protect people from rights abuses and violence by private actors. According to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, governments must not only protect people from violations of rights by government officials but “also against acts committed by private persons or entities that would impair the enjoyment” of their rights. A government may be violating human rights by “permitting or failing to take appropriate measures or to exercise due diligence to prevent, punish, investigate or redress the harm caused by such acts by private persons or entities.”

“The Thai government is failing in its obligation to seriously and effectively investigate deadly attacks against human rights advocates and hold those responsible to account,” Adams said. “With each new killing, Thailand slides further into lawlessness, and the government’s frequent claims to be protecting rights defenders ring hollow.”

a public prosecutor decided to charge Ms. Chonthicha “Lookkate” Jangreaw for violating Emergency Decree following her involvement in two pro-democracy protests on 18 and 21 October 2020 in Bangkok. The court later granted bail with a total of 40,000 Baht security for two alleged cases. The court set 9 August 2021 as the next hearing schedule.

ที่ศาลแขวงดุสิต พนักงานอัยการพิเศษฝ่ายคดีศาลแขวง 3 ได้มีคำสั่งฟ้องคดีของ “ลูกเกด” ชลธิชา แจ้งเร็ว ด้วยข้อหา ฝ่าฝืนประกาศสถานการณ์ฉุกเฉินที่มีความร้ายแรง ตาม พ.ร.ก.ฉุกเฉินฯ ใน 2 คดี ได้แก่ คดีจากการชุมนุม #ม็อบ18ตุลาไปอนุสาวรีย์ชัย ที่บริเวณอนุสาวรีย์ชัย และ คดีจากการชุมนุม #21ตุลาไปอนุสาวรีย์ชัย ซึ่งมีการเดินขบวนจากอนุสาวรีย์ชัยไปที่บริเวณหน้าทำเนียบรัฐบาล

หลังศาลรับฟ้อง ทนายจำเลยได้ยื่นประกันตัวระหว่างพิจารณา ศาลให้ประกันโดยวางหลักประกันเงินสดคดีละ 20,000 บาท รวมเป็น 40,000 บาท โดยเป็นหลักทรัพย์จากกองทุนราษฎรประสงค์ และกำหนดวันนัดพร้อมเพื่อสอบคำให้การทั้งสองคดีในวันที่ 9 ส.ค. 64 เวลา 09.00 น.

A pro-democracy defender Mr. Sirapob Phumphengphut was charged by a public prosecutor alleging him for violating Sedition and lèse-majesté offences following his involvement in pro-democracy gathering on 18 November 2020. The police alleged that he involved in throwing paints to Police Headquarter signage. The already detained defender, Mr.Saengwong, was also an alleged offender in the same case. Mr. Phumphengphut’s bail request was rejected by the court citing severity of the case

Mr. Mongkol Thirakot was arrested at his home by police officer citing new arrest warrant alleging that he violated Computer Crime Act and lèse-majesté offences following his two Facebook posts related to monarchy from 8 – 9 April 2021. He was brought to police station for detention and the officer later denied his bail request วันที่ 1 พ.ค. 64 เวลาประมาณ 13.30 น. ศูนย์ทนายความเพื่อสิทธิมนุษยชนได้รับแจ้งว่า นายมงคล ถิระโคตร หรือ “บาส” พ่อค้าขายเสื้อผ้าออนไลน์และนักกิจกรรมจากจังหวัดเชียงราย ได้ถูกเจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจ เข้าจับกุมจากบ้านพักในอำเภอพาน จังหวัดเชียงราย ตามหมายจับในข้อหาตามประมวลกฎหมายอาญามาตรา 112 และ พ.ร.บ.คอมพิวเตอร์ฯ ก่อนถูกนำตัวมายัง สภ.เมืองเชียงราย

ก่อนหน้านี้เมื่อวันที่ 14 เม.ย. 64 มงคลเคยถูกเจ้าหน้าที่ตำรวจจับกุมดำเนินคดีในทั้งสองข้อหานี้ หลังจากเดินทางไปนั่งอดอาหารประท้วงที่หน้าศาลอาญา เพื่อเรียกร้องสิทธิในการประกันตัวแกนนำราษฎร เขาถูกพนักงานสอบสวน สภ.เมืองเชียงราย แจ้งข้อหาจากการแชร์และโพสต์ข้อความ รวมทั้งคลิปเกี่ยวกับสถาบันกษัตริย์ในเฟซบุ๊กจำนวน 25 โพสต์ ในช่วงระหว่างวันที่ 2-11 มีนาคม 2564 ต่อมาศาลจังหวัดเชียงรายอนุญาตให้ปล่อยตัวชั่วคราวโดยใช้หลักทรัพย์จำนวน 1.5 แสนบาท

Ms. Chonthicha Jaengreaw and Ms. Chokechai Rompreuk were summoned to acknowledge the charges against them following their involvement in peaceful rally and gathering on 6 March 2021 in front of the Bangkok Criminal Court that called for the release of lèse-majesté detainees. They were alleged for violating Emergency Decree and Road Traffic Act

วันนี้ (27 เม.ย. 64) ที่ สน.พหลโยธิน 2 นักกิจกรรม ได้แก่ “ลูกเกด” ชลธิชา แจ้งเร็ว และ “อาเล็ก” โชคชัย ร่มพฤกษ์ ได้เข้ารับทราบ 2 ข้อกล่าวหา ฐานฝ่าฝืนข้อกำหนดตาม พ.ร.ก.ฉุกเฉินฯ และเดินขบวนกีดขวางการจราจร ตาม พ.ร.บ.จราจรทางบกฯ จากกรณีร่วมกิจกรรม #ม็อบ6มีนา ที่หน้าศาลอาญารัชดา

ที่มาของคดีนี้เกิดจากการชุมนุม กิจกรรม #ขยะในพระปรมาภิไธย หรือ #ม็อบ6มีนา ในวันที่ 6 มี.ค. 64 จัดขึ้นโดยกลุ่ม REDEM ซึ่งนัดรวมตัวกันบริเวณห้าแยกลาดพร้าว เพื่อเดินขบวนไปยังศาลอาญา รัชดาฯ จุดประสงค์เพื่อทำกิจกรรมเชิงสัญลักษณ์ นําขยะไปทิ้งหน้าศาลอาญา พร้อมเรียกร้องให้ปล่อยตัว 4 แกนนำราษฎรซึ่งถูกคุมขังระหว่างพิจารณาคดีมาตรา 112 จากการชุมนุม 19 กันยาทวงอำนาจคืนราษฎร ก่อนยุติการชุมนุมในเวลา 21.00 น.

ก่อนหน้านี้นักกิจกรรมทั้งสองราย ได้รับหมายเรียกในคดีที่มี พ.ต.ท.ธเนศ ศรีจำปา เป็นผู้กล่าวหา โดยทราบว่าพนักงานสอบสวนมีการออกหมายเรียกผู้ชุมนุมสามราย นอกจากชลธิชาและโชคชัยแล้ว ยังมีการออกหมายเรียก “พรชัย” ผู้ถูกดำเนินคดีมาตรา 112 ซึ่งเพิ่งได้รับการปล่อยตัวจากเรือนจำกลางเชียงใหม่ เมื่อวันที่ 23 เม.ย. ที่ผ่านมา และพบว่าตนเองติดเชื้อโควิดจากเรือนจำ ทำให้ไม่สามารถเดินทางมาตามนัดได้

พ.ต.ท. ศักดินาถ หนูฉ้ง สารวัตร (สอบสวน) สน.พหลโยธิน เป็นผู้แจ้งข้อกล่าวหาและพฤติการณ์ในคดี มีเนื้อหาโดยสรุปว่าเมื่อวันที่ 6 มี.ค. 64 ผู้ชุมนุมของกลุ่ม REDEM ได้รวมตัวกันบริเวณแยกลาดพร้าว มีการจัดกิจกรรมแสดงดนตรี กระทั่งเวลาประมาณ 16.00 น. กลุ่มมวลชนดังกล่าวได้ลงพื้นผิวจราจร ทําให้ประชาชนเกิดความไม่สะดวกที่จะใช้ทางสาธารณะ โดยตั้งแถวเดินขบวนจากห้าแยกลาดพร้าวมุ่งหน้าสี่แยกรัชโยธิน เดินไปตามถนนรัชดาภิเษก ไปยังศาลอาญา และผู้ชุมนุมของกลุ่ม REDEM ประมาณ 1,700 คน ได้มีการชุมนุมอยู่หน้าศาลอาญา และทํากิจกรรมนําขยะไปทิ้ง และเผาขยะเป็นเชิงสัญลักษณ์

การร่วมกันชุมนุม หรือทํากิจกรรมดังกล่าวข้างต้น เป็นการทํากิจกรรมที่มีการรวมคนที่มีความแออัด ในลักษณะที่เสี่ยงต่อการแพร่ระบาดและอาจเป็นสาเหตุที่ก่อให้เกิดโรคโควิด-19 ซึ่งมีผู้เข้าร่วมจํานวนมาก และมีโอกาสติดต่อสัมผัสกันโดยง่ายในพื้นที่กรุงเทพมหานคร อันเป็นการเสี่ยงต่อการแพร่ระบาดของเชื้อไวรัส ซึ่งการร่วมกันชุมนุมที่ไม่เป็นไปตามมาตรการป้องกันโรคที่ทางราชการกําหนด เป็นความผิดตามประกาศหัวหน้าผู้รับผิดชอบในการแก้ไขสถานการณ์ฉุกเฉินใน ส่วนที่เกี่ยวกับความมั่นคง (ฉบับที่ 5) เรื่องห้ามการชุมนุม การทํากิจกรรม การมั่วสุม ตามข้อกําหนดออกตามความในมาตรา 6 แห่ง พ.ร.ก.ฉุกเฉินฯ พ.ศ. 2548 ซึ่งผู้ต้องหาได้เข้าร่วมการชุมนุมในการจัดกิจกรรมดังกล่าวข้างต้น

พนักงานสอบสวน สภ.พหลโยธิน จึงได้แจ้งข้อกล่าวหาแก่ผู้ต้องหาหาทั้งสอง ทั้งหมด 2 ข้อหา ได้แก่

ฝ่าฝืนข้อกำหนดตาม พ.ร.ก.ฉุกเฉินฯ ร่วมกันจัดให้มีกิจกรรมซึ่งมีผู้เข้าร่วมเป็นจำนวนมากในลักษณะมั่วสุมกัน หรือมีโอกาสติดต่อสัมผัสกันง่าย ชุมนุมทำกิจกรรมหรือมั่วสุมกัน ณ ที่ใดๆ ในสถานที่แออัด หรือกระทำการดังกล่าวอันเป็นการยุยงให้เกิดความไม่สงบเรียบร้อย หรือในลักษณะที่เสี่ยงต่อการแพร่เชื้อโรค โทษจำคุกไม่เกิน 2 ปี หรือปรับไม่เกิน 40,000 บาท หรือทั้งจำทั้งปรับ ฝ่าฝืน พ.ร.บ.จราจรทางบกฯ มาตรา 108 ร่วมกันเดินเป็นขบวนแห่ หรือเดินเป็นขบวนใดๆ ในลักษณะที่เป็นการกีดขวางการจราจร ต้องระวางโทษปรับไม่เกิน 500 บาท เบื้องต้นทั้งสองรายให้การปฎิเสธตลอดทุกข้อกล่าวหา โดยชลธิชาไม่ได้ลงลายมือชื่อในบันทึกแจ้งข้อกล่าวหา และทั้งคู่จะให้การเพิ่มเติมเป็นหนังสือภายใน 20 วัน

พนักงานสอบสวนได้นัดส่งตัวผู้ต้องหาให้กับพนักงานอัยการต่อไปในวันที่ 21 พ.ค. 64 เวลา 10.30 น.

ทั้งนี้น่าสังเกตว่าผู้ถูกออกหมายเรียกทั้งสามคนไม่ได้เป็นผู้จัดกิจกรรมการชุมนุมดังกล่าวแต่อย่างใด ขณะเดียวกันรูปแบบการชุมนุมของกลุ่ม REDEM ก่อนหน้านี้ก็ไม่ได้มีแกนนำที่ชัดเจน ทำให้ไม่ทราบแน่ชัดว่าเจ้าหน้าที่อาศัยหลักเกณฑ์ใดในการกล่าวหาหรือดำเนินคดีบุคคล ในกิจกรรมซึ่งมีผู้เข้าร่วมจำนวนมาก

The Thai police came to the Bangkok Remand Prison and additional filed lèse-majesté and Sedition charges against Mr. Chiwarak and Mr. Nampa following their involvement in the peaceful gathering on 29 November 2020

27 เมษายน 2564 เวลา 10.30 น. ที่เรือนจำพิเศษกรุงเทพฯ พ.ต.ท.สราวุธ บุตรดี รองผู้กํากับการ (สอบสวน) สน.บางเขน ในฐานะคณะพนักงานสืบสวนสอบสวนตามคำสั่ง บก.น.2 ที่ 101/2564 เดินทางเข้าแจ้งข้อกล่าวหากับ “เพนกวิน” พริษฐ์ ชิวารักษ์ และ อานนท์ นำภา จากการจัดขบวนแห่และขึ้นกล่าวปราศรัยให้กำลังใจ 8 ผู้ต้องหา ผู้ได้รับหมายเรียกในความผิดตามประมวลกฎหมายอาญา มาตรา 112 และมาตรา 116 ในคดี #ม็อบ29พฤศจิกา ซึ่งทั้ง 8 คนเดินไปทางไปรับทราบข้อกล่าวหาที่ สน.บางเขน เมื่อวันที่ 21 ธันวาคม 2563

ในวันนี้เป็นการแจ้งข้อกล่าวหาผ่านวิดิโอคอนเฟอเรนซ์ในห้องเยี่ยมของทนาย โดยมีทนายความ และผู้ไว้วางใจเข้าร่วมรับฟังด้วย

บันทึกแจ้งข้อกล่าวหาระบุว่า คดีนี้เริ่มมาจากการชุมนุมที่หน้ากรมทหารราบที่ 11 เมื่อวันที่ 29 พฤศจิกายน 2563 โดยมีวัตถุประสงค์ในการปราศรัยเรื่อง การปลดอาวุธศักดินาไทย ซึ่งเกี่ยวข้องกับสถาบันกษัตริย์ มีแกนนําที่ถูกดําเนินคดีในการชุมนุมในคราวนั้นรวม 8 ราย ได้แก่ อานนท์ นำภา, พริษฐ์ ชิวารักษ์, ชินวัตร จันทร์กระจ่าง, สมยศ พฤกษาเกษมสุข, พรหมศร วีระธรรมจารี, พิมพ์สิริ เพ็ชรน้ำรอบ, ณัฏฐธิดา มีวังปลา และอินทิรา เจริญปุระ ทั้งหมดถูกหมายเรียกให้มาพบพนักงานสอบสวนเพื่อรับทราบข้อกล่าวหาที่ สน.บางเขน ในวันที่ 21 ธันวาคม 2563 เวลา 10.00 น.

ต่อมา เมื่อวันที่ 21 ธันวาคม 2563 อานนท์และพริษฐ์ได้เดินทางมาถึงที่บริเวณลานจอดรถด้านหน้า สน.บางเขน หลังจากนั้นแกนนําในกลุ่มผู้ชุมนุมนี้ได้ผลัดเปลี่ยนกันขึ้นเวทีปราศรัย โดยอานนท์ได้ขึ้นปราศรัยมีเนื้อหาพาดพิงสถาบันกษัตริย์ รายละเอียดคำปราศรัย ในบันทึกแจ้งข้อกล่าวหาตอนหนึ่งระบุว่า

“…เขาบอกว่าการต่อสู้ของพวกเราครั้งนี้ อันนี้เรียนตามตรงมันเลี่ยงที่จะโดน 112 ไม่ได้ เลี่ยงไม่ได้เพราะอะไรก็เพราะว่าพวกเรา มาชี้ข้อบกพร่องของสถาบันกษัตริย์ มันเลี่ยงไม่ได้ที่จะพูดถึงข้อดีมันต้องพูดถึงข้อเสีย เพราะอย่างนั้นจะไม่มีการปฏิรูป ทรงพระเจริญ ทรงพระเจริญ อย่างเดียว แล้วจะเอาข้อมูลอะไรไปปฏิรูป ….ถ้าผมไม่พูดถึงสถาบันกษัตริย์แล้วท่านจะปรับตัวได้อย่างไร ในเมื่อมีแต่คนสรรเสริญเยินยอ วันนี้เรามาพูดแทนพี่น้องทั้ง ประเทศ เพื่อให้สถาบันกษัตริย์ปฏิรูปมันไม่ใช่การล้มล้าง ผมเรียนตั้งแต่ต้นมันไม่ใช่การล้มล้าง อย่ามากล่าวหากัน แต่ถ้าท่านไม่ยอมปฏิรูปปีหน้าเจอกัน”

“ทําไมเราต้องมาเรียกร้องให้ปฏิรูปสถาบันกษัตริย์ เพราะว่าเรายังเห็น ณ วันนี้ ว่าบ้านเมืองเรามันเป็นประชาธิปไตยที่มีกษัตริย์เป็นประมุขยังทําได้ เราจึงเรียกร้องให้มีการปฏิรูป… นอกจากหลักธรรมของกษัตริย์แล้ว การละเมิดต่อกฎหมายที่เราคิดว่าท่านทำผิดท่านต้องปรับปรุงตัว การเอากองกำลังทหารเป็นของตัวเองอันนี้คือเรื่องผิด และการเอาทรัพย์สินซึ่งเป็นสาธารณะไปเป็นของตนอันนี้ก็ขัดหลักการเต็มๆ…”

“…ใครก็ตามที่ไม่ทรงพระเจริญ ใครก็ตามที่ไม่ใส่เสื้อเหลืองมีโอกาสโดนทุกคนถ้าพูดความจริง และถ้าไม่ยกเลิก 112 ไม่มีทางปฏิรูปสถาบันกษัตริย์ได้ เพราะเราจะไม่สามารถบอกว่าอันนี้มันมีอะไรบกพร่อง ถ้าติไม่ได้ ชมอย่างเดียว มันพาเราลงเหวรถคันนี้ นั่นคือเหตุผล จะแจ้งจับก็เชิญ เราก็พร้อมสู้คดี ขอบคุณดังๆ ไปยังศาลยุติธรรมด้วยที่ตํารวจไปขอออกหมายจับแล้วศาลไม่ออกให้ บอกว่าไอ้คนพวกนี้มันเป็นคนมีวินัย ออกหมายเรียกเราก็ไปเจอ ใช่ไม่ใช่ แล้วเจอกันที่ศาลครับพี่น้องตํารวจ เราจะเอารูปทุกรูปเกี่ยวกับสถาบันกษัตริย์ ข้อมูลทุกอย่างไปนําเสนอที่ศาล แล้วเจอกัน ท่านอย่าอ้าปากหวอเมื่อเจอรูปเหล่านั้น”

ความเห็นโดยสรุปของพนักงานสอบสวนระบุว่า จากคําปราศรัยของอานนท์มีเนื้อหาเป็นการวิพากษ์วิจารณ์พระราชอํานาจของพระมหากษัตริย์ ทําให้ผู้ที่ได้ฟังเข้าใจว่า ผู้พูดกําลังพูดถึงรัชกาลที่ 10 รัชกาลปัจจุบัน โดยเนื้อหาทั้งหมดเป็นการกล่าวพาดพิง ให้ร้ายต่อองค์พระมหากษัตริย์ ว่าเป็นการยักยอกเอาทรัพย์สินซึ่งเป็นสาธารณะไปเป็นของตนเอง มุ่งให้ผู้ฟังเกิดความเข้าใจผิดพลาดคลาดเคลื่อน สร้างความเสื่อมศรัทธาให้เกิดขึ้นในหมู่ชน จึงเป็นการร่วมกันหมิ่นพระบรมเดชานุภาพ ดูหมิ่น หมิ่นประมาท รัชกาลที่ 10 ทําให้สถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์ได้รับความเสียหาย

ส่วนบันทึกแจ้งข้อกล่าวหาของ “เพนกวิน” พริษฐ์ ระบุเช่นเดียวกันว่า คําปราศรัยของพริษฐ์ มีเนื้อหาเป็นการวิพากษ์วิจารณ์พระราชอํานาจของพระมหากษัตริย์ ทําให้ผู้ที่ได้ฟังเข้าใจว่า ผู้พูดกําลังพูดถึงรัชกาลที่ 10 รัชกาลปัจจุบัน เนื่องจากมีการใช้คําว่า “พระวชิรเกล้าเจ้าอยู่หัว” โดยมุ่งชี้ประเด็นการโอนกําลังพลราบ 11 รักษาพระองค์ และราบ 1 รักษาพระองค์ ไปสังกัดภายใต้บังคับบัญชาของพระองค์ เป็นการวิพากษ์วิจารณ์ก้าวล่วงพระราชอํานาจของพระมหากษัตริย์โดยตรง

ทั้งมีการกล่าวหาว่าทรงเป็นฆาตกร หรือผู้อยู่เบื้องหลังกรณีการอุ้มหายของบุคคลต่างๆ โดยมีการพูดเพื่อให้ผู้ฟังคล้อยตามโดยขาดพยานหลักฐาน มีการเปรียบเทียบให้เป็นกองกําลังของฮิตเลอร์ โดยเนื้อหาทั้งหมดเป็นการกล่าวพาดพิง ให้ร้ายต่อองค์พระมหากษัตริย์ ทั้งเป็นการกล่าวหาที่มุ่งให้ผู้ฟังเกิดความเข้าใจผิดพลาดคลาดเคลื่อน สร้างความเสื่อมศรัทธาให้เกิดขึ้นในหมู่ชน จึงเป็นการร่วมกันหมิ่นพระบรมเดชานุภาพ ดูหมิ่น หมิ่นประมาท รัชกาลที่ 10 ทําให้สถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์ได้รับความเสียหาย

พ.ต.ท.สราวุธ บุตรดี จึงได้แจ้งข้อกล่าวเพนกวินและอานนท์ รวม 5 ข้อหา คือ

ร่วมกันหมิ่นประมาท ดูหมิ่น หรือแสดงความอาฆาตมาดร้ายพระมาหกษัตริย์ ตามประมวลกฎหมายอาญา มาตรา 112
ร่วมกันเป็นผู้จัดการชุมนุมสาธารณะโดยไม่แจ้งการชุมนุมฯ ฝ่าฝืน พ.ร.บ.การชุมนุมสาธารณะฯ มาตรา 10 ร่วมกันชุมนุมสาธารณะโดยกีดขวางทางเข้าออกหรือรบกวนการปฏิบัติงานของหน่วยงานของรัฐ ฝ่าฝืน พ.ร.บ.การชุมนุมสาธารณะฯ มาตรา 8 ร่วมกันใช้เครื่องขยายเสียงโดยไม่ได้รับอนุญาต ฝ่าฝืน พ.ร.บ.ควบคุมการโฆษณาโดยใช้เครื่องขยายเสียงฯ มาตรา 4 ร่วมกันกระทําการหรือดําเนินการใด ๆ ซึ่งอาจก่อให้เกิดสภาวะที่ไม่ถูกสุขลักษณะ ซึ่งอาจเป็นเหตุให้โรคติดต่อแพร่ออกไป ฝ่าฝืน พ.ร.บ.โรคติดต่อฯ มาตรา 34 (6) อานนท์และพริษฐ์ให้การปฎิเสธตลอดข้อกล่าวหา และจะให้การเป็นหนังสือภายใน 30 วัน

เพนกวินยังได้บันทึกหมายเหตุด้วยปากกาไว้ท้ายบันทึกแจ้งข้อกล่าวหาว่า “ข้าพเจ้าขอยืนยันว่าปัจจุบันข้าพเจ้าถูกควบคุมอยู่ที่เรือนจำพิเศษกรุงเทพมหานคร ไม่ได้มีเจตนาจะหลบหนีหรือจะไปยุ่งเหยิงกับพยานหลักฐาน หรือจะไปก่อเหตุภยันตรายประการอื่น หากพนักงานสอบสวนจะสอบสวนเพิ่มเติมหรือกำหนดนัดอื่น ข้าพเจ้าก็พร้อมที่จะเดินทางไปพบพนักงานสอบสวน และหากพนักงานสอบสวนมีหมายจับก็ขอให้แสดงต่อข้าพเจ้าในวันนี้”

ทั้งนี้ การจัดกิจกรรมหน้า สน.บางเขน เพื่อให้กำลังใจนักกิจกรรม ที่เดินทางเข้ารับทราบข้อกล่าวหาตามมาตรา 112 ในวันที่ 21 ธันวาคม 2563 นี้ พ.ต.ท.อนันต์ วรสาตร์ รองผู้กำกับสืบสวน สน.บางเขน ได้แจ้งความให้ดำเนินคดีนักกิจกรรมรวม 7 ราย ได้แก่ อานนท์ นำภา, “เพนกวิน” พริษฐ์ ชิวารักษ์, “ไมค์” ภาณุพงศ์ จาดนอก, “ฟ้า” พรหมศร วีระธรรมจารี, ชินวัตร จันทร์กระจ่าง, วรรณวลี ธรรมสัตยา และพิมพ์สิริ เพชรน้ำรอบ โดย 5 ราย เป็นผู้ที่เข้ารับทราบข้อกล่าวหาในวันดังกล่าวและถูกดำเนินคดีอีกคดี ได้แก่ อานนท์, พริษฐ์, พรหมศร, ชินวัตร และพิมพ์สิริ

โดยเฉพาะอานนท์, พริษฐ์ และชินวัตร ถูกดำเนินคดีตามมาตรา 112 ซ้ำอีกคดี จากการจากการหยิบยกเนื้อหาคำปราศรัยในประเด็น “ปฏิรูปสถาบันกษัตริย์” ที่หน้ากรมทหารราบที่ 11 เมื่อวันที่ 29 พฤศจิกายน 2563 ซึ่งเป็นเหตุให้ถูกดำเนินคดี 112 และต้องเข้ารับทราบข้อกล่าวหาในวันนั้น

สวนภาณุพงศ์, พรหมศร, วรรณวลี และพิมพ์สิริ ถูกดำเนินคดีใน 4 ข้อหา ตาม พ.ร.บ.การชุมนุมสาธารณะฯ และอื่นๆ

ก่อนหน้านี้ ชินวัตร, วรรณวลี และพิมพ์สิริ ได้เดินทางเข้ารับทราบข้อกล่าวหาตามหมายเรียกแล้ว ขณะที่ผู้ถูกออกหมายเรียกอีก 4 ราย ถูกคุมขังอยู่ในเรือนจำ ได้แก่ ภาณุพงศ์, พรหมศร, อานนท์ และพริษฐ์ พนักงานสอบสอนได้ทยอยเข้าแจ้งข้อกล่าวหาจนครบแล้ว

Detained protest leader Arnon Nampa has fallen ill with Covid and been moved for medical treatment, his Facebook page and news reports said Thursday.

The protest leader is in Bangkok Remand Prison awaiting trial on charges of sedition and lese-majeste for organizing and making speeches at pro-democracy rallies.

The Facebook post said he has been moved to Medical Correctional Institution. An earlier post on Wednesday said Arnon had a fever and has been feeling nauseated for the past three days.

Sunai Phasuk, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch in Thailand also posted on his personal social media accounts that Arnon has contracted the virus.

A call to his lawyer went unanswered.

If confirmed, Arnon would be the second protest leader to have contracted coronavirus in jail while awaiting their trial after Chukiat “Justin” Sawangwong tested positive for the virus last month.

Arnon had been tested for Covid-19 and the results were pending, according to a local news report.

In addition from Arnon, who was detained February 9, there are 22 other pre-trial detainees charged with violations related to political protests. Of those, 10 are being charged with lese-majeste.

Arnon was one of the first protest leaders to break the taboo of making speeches about the need to reform the royal institution last year. He is facing now 12 lese-majeste cases.

Two Chiang Mai University students reported to the police yesterday (11 May) after being summoned on a royal defamation charge over an art installation piece, while an artists’ network has called on the University to defend their freedom.

Withaya Khlangnin and Yotsunthon Ruttapradid went to Phuping Rajanivej Police Station at 9.00 to answer charges under Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code, or the lèse majesté law, and the 1979 Flag Act. They were summoned by the police after Srisuwan Janya, Secretary-General of the Association for the Protection of the Constitution, filed a complaint against them for an art installation piece they exhibited during a 14 March 2021 protest at Chiang Mai University.

The installation piece was also shown during an event on 25 March 2021, when students from the Faculty of Fine Arts gathered in front of the University’s Office of Strategy Management to demand an explanation from University and Faculty management for an incident on 22 March 2021, when the Dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts and several other faculty personnel attempted to remove students’ art projects from the Media Arts and Design Department building without first informing the students, claiming that some pieces could violate the law.

The art piece features a mannequin wrapped in plastic in the middle of two red and white strips, on which participants at the 14 March protest were invited to write down messages. Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that, according to the police, the messages violated Section 112. The police also said that, since the art piece looks like a Thai flag without the blue stripe, which represents the monarchy, it means that the artist does not wish for the monarchy to exist in the country.

Withaya and Yotsunthon denied all charges. Their lawyer requested that they be released at the inquiry stage on the ground that they are not likely to flee and are not able to tamper with the evidence. They were released after police officers took their fingerprints, and were not taken to court for a temporary detention request as they were initially told by the inquiry officer. They are required to report to the police again on 31 May 2021.

Before he went into the police station, Withaya staged a performance during which he used a razor to cut the number “112” into his chest. Police officers tried to stop him, but were not successful.

Police officers also used metal fence to block the entrance to the police station, while around 15 uniformed officers and at least 20 plainclothes officers were stationed around the building as a group of around 40 supporters gathered.

Somchai Preechasinlapakun, lecturer from the Faculty of Law, Chiang Mai University, who came to the police station with the students, said that he is very concerned that this is happening to the students, as the university should be protecting their freedom of expression, and that the students’ way of expression is not unusual among those who are interested in freedom of expression and those who are involved in the arts. He questioned how the evidence in the case ended up in the hands of the police, and that it would be very bad if it was sent to the police by university personnel.

Meanwhile, the Art and Cultural Activist Network for Democracy (ACAND), a network of artists, activists, and academics, issued a statement signed by 518 people, calling for the university to protect academic freedom and support the students.

ACAND demands that the Faculty of Fine Arts defend the students’ creativity and expression, and that Chiang Mai University must grant the students’ right to legal protection and moral support. They also called on the Thai authorities to respect the students’ right to bail.

“We, the Art and Cultural Network for Democracy, will monitor this case to inform the international art and cultural communities. We will watch the Chiang Mai University Administration’s response to the role in defending artistic and academic freedom and its response to the use of legal action against artistic and academic freedom too,” says the statement.

The Criminal Court has once again denied bail for 7 activists detained on royal defamation charges under Section 112, one of whom is Parit Chiwarak, whose health is reported to be rapidly declining due to his hunger strike.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that its lawyers went to the Criminal Court today (29 April) to request bail again for Parit Chiwarak, Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul, Anon Nampa, Chukiat Sangwong, and Parinya Cheewinkulpatom, who are detained pending trial on royal defamation charges under Section 112.

Parit, who has been detained for 80 days so far, has been on a hunger strike for the past 45 days to protest against the denial of bail for detained activists.

Lawyer Kritsadang Nutcharat said that one of the reasons for requesting bail is concern over the spread of Covid-19 in prisons, because even the court is concerned that the virus will spread among court officials. He also said that there is no more reason to keep the activists in detention, and that it would be acceptable if the court set a condition related with their trial. He also mentioned that the court previously granted bail for activists Jatupat Boonpattaraksa and Somyot Pruksakasemsuk.

He also said that he visited Parit on 28 April and spoke to him through teleconference. During the visit, Parit told Kritsadang that he has not been able to sleep, his skin is dry, and that he suffers from nausea and fatigue. Blood was also found in his stools, but he has not been sent to the Medical Correctional Institution to have his condition assessed.

Kritsadang said that, in addition to the bail request, they have also requested that the court allow Parit to be taken to Rama 9 Hospital for 30 days, because the hospital is better equiooed than the Medical Correctional Institution, and that the court may continue to detain him after the 30-day period, but the court has already dismissed that request.
Parit’s mother Sureerat Chiwarak also told reporters after she filed the bail request for her son that, while the Department of Corrections has denied that Parit's condition has worsened, she learned about his condition from what Parit said and Parit knows his own condition best.

She also said that she does not want him to be treated at the Medical Correctional Institution, where many inmates with Covid-19 are being treated. She would like her son released so she can care for him herself, and asked how the authorities will take responsibility if anything happens to him.

"I will fight to the very end. I will not lose my son," Sureerat said.

Meanwhile, a crowd of supporters started forming in front of the Bangkok Criminal Court building on Ratchadapisek Road at 12.00. At 13.45, student activist Benja Apan and a group of other students came to the Criminal Court to submit an open letter demanding the release of detained activists, signed by over 10,000 people.

Benja said during a speech in front of the court building that the students acted because they would like society to improve and for the monarchy to co-exist with society under the law. They are not a threat to national security. They are living humans and are students in their 20's.

Benja called on the court to grant bail to the detained activists and release them, because they have not yet been declared guilty and should have their humanity returned to them.

At 15.02, since judge Chanathip Muanpawong did not come to receive the letter, Benja scattered pieces of paper printed with the names of 11,035 people who signed the letter on the steps to the court building, but was blocked from going inside by court officials.

The crowd waited in front of the court building throughout the afternoon. At 16.50, Benja announced to the crowd that the court has postponed the decision on the bail requests to Friday morning (30 April), and that the hearing will be held online.

She demanded that the court read the ruling in person that evening, and said that the student activist group United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration (UFTD) will also be moving their 'Stand Against Detention' event to the Criminal Court.

At 17.00, riot control police were seen lining up behind the Criminal Court building. They were seen arriving in several buses at around 16.30. However, their buses were blocked by the crowd and left the court after being stopped for around 5 minutes.

At 18.05, TLHR reported that the court denied bail for the activists on the ground that there is no reason to change existing court order.

The ruling was signed by judge Tawan Rodcharoen. Judge Tawan delivered the verdict in the Joe Gordon lèse majesté case in 2011. The Thai-born dual Thai-US citizen was convicted for translating parts of a banned book about the late King Rama IX and posting them on the Internet while in the United States. After repeated bail requests were denied, he pleaded guilty and was given a 5-year sentence, reduced by half because of his guilty plea.

The crowd then moved to the footpath in front of the Criminal Court, where they lit candles and gave speeches to protest against the denial of bail for detained activists and said they will stay until the activists are released.

However, the UFTD announced at around 22.00 that the activities have ended for the day and for people to return tomorrow (30 April).

Student activist Wanwalee Thammasattaya has been detained pending trial on a royal defamation charge relating to a protest on 6 December 2020.

On Tuesday (27 April), the public prosecutor filed a case against Wanwalee and activist Chukiat “Justin” Saengwong in a royal defamation charge relating to speeches given during a protest at Wongwian Yai on 6 December 2020.

Thanakorn (last name withheld), 17, is also facing charges in the same case, but as he is a minor, his case is being processed by the Central Juvenile and Family Court. He will have to report to the prosecutor on 24 May 2021 to hear whether the prosecutor will file a case against him.

Meanwhile, Chukiat is currently being detained pending trial on another Section 112 charge. He has been in prison since 23 March.

The complaints against them was filed by Chakrapong Klinkaew, leader of the royalist group People Protecting the Institution.

The Thonburi Criminal Court ordered Wanwalee to be detained pending trial, and denied her request for bail with a security of 200,000 baht on the ground that the plaintiff objected to granting her bail and that she is likely to flee, since she is facing several counts on the same charge.

Wanwalee is facing 2 other counts under Section 112 for a speech given at a protest in front of the Siam Commercial Bank headquarters on 25 November 2020 and for posting a picture of a protest banner containing a message about the monarchy on her Facebook page on 21 November 2020.

Wanwalee is being detained at the Thonburi Women Correctional Institution, making her the 17th person to be detained pending trial in cases relating to political expression.

Of these 17 people, 10 are being detained pending trial on a Section 112 charge. Other than Wanwalee and Chukiat, Parit Chiwarak, Anon Nampa, Chaiamorn “Ammy” Kaewwiboonpan, Parinya “Fort” Cheewinkulpatom, Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul, Panupong Jadnok, Piyarat Chongthep, and Phromsorn Weerathamjaree are currently in detention.

A man who has been on hunger strike in front of the Criminal Court for the past three days to demand the release of detained activists has been arrested on charges under the lèse majesté law and the Computer Crimes Act.

Mongkhon Thirakot, 27, came from Chiang Rai on 12 April to join the hunger strike while sitting in front of the Criminal Court on Ratchadaphisek Road, Bangkok, to demand the release of activists currently detained pending trial and denied bail. He said that he felt it was unfair that the court has yet to issue a verdict on the activists’ case but has already detained them, so he wanted to demand their release so that they would have the chance to fight their case.

Mongkhon said that when he arrived at the Criminal Court at around 5.00 – 6.00 on 12 April, court officials came to place metal barriers in front of the Criminal Court sign and told him that his action might be considered contempt of court, so he went to sit just next to the sign. Several officers also came to ask for his personal information, as well as questioning him on whether he is involved with drugs, what his intentions are, and how long he intends to stay. They also asked to search his belongings. An officer also later told him that a ‘higher-up’ in the Court is unhappy and would like him to go away, but he insisted on staying where he was and told the officers that they could arrest him if he is doing anything wrong.

He also said that later that morning, a group of uniformed and plainclothes police officers from Phaholyothin Police Station, along with some officers dressed like a commando unit, arrived to question him for another hour. He said that police and court officers periodically came to ask him the same questions over and over. Some officers offered to buy him food and drink, and some offered to find him a place to stay so that he would leave the area in front of the court.

A large number of officers also returned the next day as a few people began to gather at the Criminal Court to support Mongkhon, along with members of the press who came to cover his hunger strike. Mongkhon said that both court police and officers from Phaholyothin Police Station were present in the area, and that 5 police trucks and a number of motorcycles were parked near where he was staying, which caused him concern.

Mongkhon said he went to ask the police why they had to bring so many officers and whether it was because there were reporters in the area. The officers told him that they were “keeping people safe.” He then told the officers that this is unnecessary, as they were treating his activity like a protest even though there were only three people and they were not doing anything but sitting there.

At 13.20 on 14 April, Mongkhon was arrested by police officers from Phaholyothin Police Station. The officers presented an arrest warrant from Phan Police Station in Chiang Rai, which stated that he was being charged under Section 112, or the lèse majesté law, and the Computer Crimes Act.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that, at 14.00, after he was taken to Phaholyothin Police Station to record his arrest, Mongkol was taken to Chiang Rai.

TLHR later reported that police officers from the Muang Chiang Rai Police Station went to search Mongkhon’s house this morning (14 April). The officers presented a search warrant to Mongkhon’s parents, but Mongkhon, who was also with the officers during the search, did not see the warrant and did not know whether anything was confiscated.

Chukiat ‘Justin’ Sangwong, a leading figure in the Thai pro-democracy protests, has tested positive for Covid-19 while in detention as a suspect under the lèse majesté law, the Department of Corrections confirmed on 24 April.

According to the Department, Chukiat was taken to the Medical Correctional Institution on 24 April for treatment and his contacts have been isolated.

Thawatchai Chaiwat, the Department spokesperson, said that 9 officers and 26 detainees had been in contact with Chukiat. However, they have all tested negative according to results released on 25 April.

The detainees in close contact with Chukiat include leading figures in the democratic movement such as Parit Chiwarak, Anon Nampa, and Chai-amorn Kaewwiboonpan. Had they been infected, they would have added to the total of 1 officer and 9 detainees infected in Bangkok Remand Prison.

Among people at risk, Parit Chiwarak is of special concern. He was reaching the 42nd day of a hunger strike to demand the release of political activists on bail.

Sureerat Chiwarak, his mother, said before her son’s test result came out that she was consulting with his lawyer to immediately request bail again. Bail for Parit has already been rejected 10 times for what the court claims to be the possibility of re-offending against the sedition and lèse majesté laws.

Another leading figure of the democratic movement, Jatupat ‘Pai’ Boonpattararaksa, slept near to Chukiat before he was released on bail on 23 April. He and the court officers who processed his bail were ordered by the Department to report their health status and refrain from travelling.

Even though all others have tested negative, Thawatchai said that they will be put into 14-day quarantine just to make sure they are safe. To step up control measures, the Department will check a new detainee twice before and after a 3-day quarantine, seek vaccines for correctional officers, and check them every 14 days to ensure their safety.

In the wake of Chukiat’s infection, the Department said on 24 April that they will also prepare a field hospital to isolate those infected with mild or no symptoms.

Chukiat Sangwong, also known as Justin for his love of the style of Justin Timberlake, was arrested on 23 March under the lèse majesté law. Police claimed that he committed a lèse majesté offence when the student group REDEM held a protest on 20 March.

Concern over the outbreak in Bangkok Remand Prison was raised when Anon Nampa told his lawyer to spread the news on social media on 22 April. Anon’s lawyer also said on social media that Chukiat’s friends were also worried that he might be infected.

In response, Bangkok Remand Prison released a statement saying that Chukiat had a high fever on 18 April. However, it was found on 21 April that he had an abscess at the nape of his neck and was treated accordingly.

There was no mention of Chukiat being infected except that he, like other new detainees, was already under 14-day quarantine and examined medically twice a week on Tuesdays and Fridays. Bangkok Remand Prison said that the measures were in compliance with orders of the Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Justice. However, the situation changed when the Chukiat’s positive result came out.

In Thailand, Chukiat is one among many who have been infected in the third outbreak. According to the government’s daily reports, Thailand saw an exponential increase from 26 new cases on 1 April to 2859 on 24 April. This time the outbreak is more worrying due to the severity of new variants and the government’s delay in delivering vaccines. Among the first cases in the third outbreak was Minister of Transport Saksayam Chidchob, who allegedly became infected in contact with female entertainers at a night club in Thong Lor.

As Covid-19 infections spread in pubs and bars, 9 people who gave speeches at the 24 March protest at Ratchaprasong intersection have been charged with violating the Emergency Decree.

Patsaravalee Tanakitvibulpon, one of the leading pro-democracy protest figures who gave a speech addressing monarchy reform on that day was also charged with violating Section 112 of the Criminal Code, the royal defamation law.

10 people were summoned to Lumpini Police Station on 8 April to hear the charges: Patsaravalee Tanakitvibulpon, Chatchai Kaedam, Yingcheep Atchanont, Chinnawat Chankrachang, Thanaporn Wichan, Benja Apan, Chumaporn Taengkliang, Khanaphot (surname withheld by request), Atthapol Buapat and Natthida Meewangpla.

The investigator stated that the 10 were engaged in an activity that caused a crowd to gather, posing a threat of Covid-19 infection, which constitutes a violation of the Emergency Decree. All suspects denied the charges and will submit documentary evidence on 23 April. They were released without bail.

Atthapol did not report to the police station with the others as he had to attend court for his trial regarding his involvement in the 19-20 September 2020 protest at Thammasat University and Sanam Luang.

Patsaravalee said she understood that the authorities would use every measure to undermine protests, which may not succeed because the people have heard the reason why they [the protestors who gave speeches] came out. The speakers insisted that what they said was correct.

Patsaravalee said that the ongoing enforcement of the Emergency Decree and Communicable Diseases Law is not meant to solve the Covid-19 problem but to suppress people who think differently. The new surge of infections is also not from the common people.

The new wave of infections appears to stem largely from pubs and bars in the Thong Lo area of Bangkok. Saksayam Chidchob, Bhumjai Thai Party Secretary-General and the Minister of Transport, Lt Gen Sansern Kaewkamnerd, Public Relations Department Director General and 2 high-ranking soldiers reportedly tested positive.

Current infections are spreading among celebrities and the political and military elite. Some are suspected of enjoying the nightlife at bars in Thong Lo without announcing to the public after they tested positive, or meeting those who have been there. Saksayam denied that he went to a bar in Thong Lor and provided a timeline for his whereabouts from 24-31 March.

Since the surge of pro-democracy protests in July 2020, no cases of Covid-19 infection from the protest sites has been reported.

Activist Piyarat “Toto” Chongthep was immediately re-arrested on a royal defamation charge under Section 112, Thailand’s lèse majesté law, after he was granted bail on a criminal organization charge and released from Bangkok Remand Prison.

Piyarat was arrested on 6 March along with another 47 members of the We Volunteer (WeVo) protest guard group by an armed police SWAT team, who used force and did not produce an arrest warrant, while they were at a shopping mall, eating and waiting to attend the protest at the judicial court complex on Ratchadapisek Road. He was detained pending trial on a criminal organization charge, while the rest of the group were granted bail.

On 2 April, the Criminal Court granted bail for Piyarat using 45,000 baht as security, on the ground that the inquiry officer cannot present enough evidence to confirm that he was guilty, as when he was arrested, he was with 2 – 3 other people and did not resist arrest.

However, after he was granted bail, Piyarat was immediately detained at the Bangkok Remand Prison and taken to Prachachuen Police Station, as the Kalasin Provincial Court had issued an arrest warrant for him on a royal defamation charge under Section 112.

The arrest warrant was issued on 2 April and was requested for by an officer from Yang Talad Police Station. However, the reason the warrant was issued was not stated.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported at 20.40 on 2 April that Piyarat was then taken to Yang Talad Police Station and would be taken to Kalasin Provincial Court on 3 April for a temporary detention request.

According to TLHR, Piyarat is being charged with royal defamation for printing banners criticising the government’s Covid-19 vaccine programme and hanging them from trees, electricity poles, and a commemoration arch for the king along a road in the Yang Talad District area.

The banners contained messages such as “Giving the spotlight to the palace,” “Vaccine company monopoly,” “conflict of interest,” and “royal favour.” Pictures of the banners were also posted on Piyarat’s Facebook page and the We Volunteer Twitter account.

In addition to the royal defamation charge, Piyarat is also being charged with importing into a computer system data relating to an offence against national security under Section 14 of the Computer Crimes Act.

At 11.00 on 3 April, the Kalasin District Court ruled to have Piyarat temporarily detained on the ground that the charge under Section 112 is severe, that he is likely to repeat the offence and tamper with evidence. The court denied him bail and he was taken to be detained at Kalasin Remand Prison.

45 protest guards from the We Volunteer group have gone to hear additional charges after being arrested by armed police before a protest on 6 March. Despite being released from detention by other protesters while under a police escort, they took the decision to walk to the nearest police station to turn themselves in and demonstrate that they were not trying to escape. The police have nevertheless charged them with resisting officials.

The latest charge hearing took place on 31 March at Phaholyothin Police Station. They had previously been charged for violating the Covid-19 control Emergency Decree, forming a criminal organization and forming a secret society), according to Matichon.

Pawinee Chumsri, a lawyer from Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) said the WeVo members face different charges, ranging from resisting or fighting back against the authorities, possessing unauthorized military equipment (vests) to possessing unauthorized walkie talkies. The accused will have to report to the prosecutor on 9 April at 10.00.

Originally, 46 were arrested at the scene, including Piyarat Chongthep, the leader who has been in prison since March 9. They were arrested by an armed police SWAT team while they were at a nearby shopping mall, eating and waiting to attend the protest at the Criminal Court on 6 March.

According to their testimony to TLHR, they were rounded up by the police commandos, forced to lie on the ground, had guns pointed at their backs, had their hands tied with cables and had their belongings seized.

They were put into 3 different detention vehicles, 1 of which, containing 18 people, was able to make it to Border Patrol Police Region 1. The other 2 were intercepted by the protesters on Ratchadapisek Road. The cage padlocks on the second vehicle were broken and the WeVo members got out. Another 14 who were sitting in the third vehicle remained inside for 2 hours in total.

At 21.10, a lawyer from TLHR came to see the remaining WeVo members in the third vehicle and took them to Phaholyothin Police Station to present themselves out of fear of being charged with escaping. Those from the second vehicle later followed them to the station, 28 in total.

Pawinee said the charge of resisting the authorities was filed by the police despite the fact that they had voluntarily presented themselves at the police station, where the incident was recorded in the daily log. The charge reflects the abnormal reaction of the authorities to people who express their political views, resulting in unfair treatment right from the beginning of the judicial process.

“They were eating at the time. They were still eating and had not gone to the protest and had not caused any disorder. You may charge them with forming a secret society or whatever, but you still have no evidence to prosecute them. They had not done anything as has been claimed. I think it is an unfair prosecution,” said Pavinee.

The TLHR lawyer said the police should return to the principle where a person charged has committed an offence and the elements of the offence exist. The prosecution for political purposes against those who have different opinions cannot change their opinions. The discriminatory treatment that people receive will alienate them from the judicial system and the state’s system.

In the morning and evening of 14 March, protesters at the ‘Through the Sky Village’ set up near Government House were rounded up with no warrants shown. The Prime Minister denied any connection with the group photo of the new cabinet.

In both incidents, protesters in the makeshift village observed by peaceful methods by sitting or lying down, raising the 3-finger salute and letting the police take them into custody.

Those arrested were divided into 2 groups: 61 people who were arrested at 06.00 on Sunday and 31 who re-established the village in the afternoon and were arrested in the evening. Before being taken to court for a temporary detention order hearing, the first group were detained and charged at the Border Patrol Police Region 1, Pathum Thani, and the second at the Narcotics Suppression Bureau on Vibhavadi Rangsit Road.

On Monday night, all 92 were released on bail with 20,000 baht each as securities.

99 were arrested in total, but 6 were youths and earlier given bail by the court earlier while one other was allowed bail by the police.

92 were sent to Dusit Court for a temporary detention order hearing on Monday morning. They were charged with violating the Emergency Decree, causing traffic disorder and public dirtiness. Lawyers were waiting to submit bail requests.

On Monday, people gathered at the Pathumwan Skywalk to protest against the arrests. A protest was called for 14.00 on Tuesday 30 March at Government House to coincide with the cabinet photo shoot. The gathering perhaps is a symbolic action of resistance as the real photo shoot has been taken at Tuesday morning.

Prison guards attempted last night (15 March) to take activists Jatupat “Pai Dao Din” Boonpattarasaksa and Panupong Jadnok out of the wing where they are being held, claiming that they needed to be tested for Covid-19, says human rights lawyer Anon Nampa in a petition filed with the Criminal Court. Anon’s petition said that the guards came into their cell at 21.30 to try to take Jatupat and Panupong away, but the others refused to let them be taken away, so the officers returned at 23.45 with more people and batons, and twice more at 00.15 and 2.30 on 16 March. During the last two attempts, guards in dark blue uniforms and with no name tags were also present.

Anon said that the guards claimed that Jatupat and Panupong had to undergo a Covid-19 test, but the others refused to let them be taken due to concerns about their safety. He also said that it is unusual to take inmates out of the wing in the middle of the night, and that he fears for their lives as there have been rumours that they would be harmed while in prison.

“I did not sleep all night because I was afraid we would be in danger. Please help save our lives,” said Anon’s petition.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) said that Anon also wrote another petition for the lawyers to file with the chief of the Bangkok Remand Prison for an investigation into the identity of the officers involved and the agencies they belong to, as well as for CCTV camera footage of the incident to be released.

Anon’s petition also asked that the prison chief explain whether officers are allowed to take inmates out of the cells after midnight.

Jatupat and Panupong were previously held at the Thonburi Remand Prison, but they were moved to the Bangkok Remand Prison after their lawyer filed an inquiry request with the court on 11 March, as on 8 March the court ordered them to be detained at the Bangkok Remand Prison, but they were taken to the Thonburi Remand Prison instead.

On 8 March, the criminal court ordered the detention pending trial of Panusaya Sitthijirawattanakul, Jatupat Boonbattararaksa and Panupong Jadnok, leading figures in the pro-democracy protests, on sedition, royal defamation and several other charges. Piyarat Chongtep, leader of the We Volunteer protest guard group also detained for criminal organization

The first 3 reported along with another 14 people as scheduled on 8 March morning to be charged over the 19-20 September 2020 protests at Thammasat University and Sanam Luang. In total, they were charged with sedition, organizing more than 10 people to cause disorder, unlawful procession, emergency decree, vandalism and destroying antiquity site. Only the 3 had additional charge on royal defamation. 14 were allowed bail.

There were actually 15 people summoned to the court in this set of lawsuit. Only 14 were able to made to the court as the another one, Chaiamorn ‘Ammy’ Kaewwiboonpan has already been detained in prison.

Piyarat was arrested along with another 47 We Volunteer (WeVo) members by a SWAT police team who used force and did not produce an arrest warrant on 6 March prior to the protest at the judicial court complex. All but Piyarat were allowed bail. The WeVo case process is still in the police stage.

Movement supporters expressed disappointment and anger after bail was again refused by gathering at the Victory Monument on the evening of 8 March to protest. They asked people to dress in black as a symbolic show of resistance before dispersing at around 21.00.

Amnesty International released a statement claming that the mass prosecutions, amount to 382 protest leaders and demonstrators in 207 cases since 2020, tantamount to systematic suppression of freedom.

“It is profoundly worrying that the Thai authorities are systematically prosecuting a large number of protest leaders and demonstrators. In certain cases, the suspects may face up to 15 years of imprisonment. This is a severe and disproportionate punishment. Given the normally protracted period of trial, the prosecution of dissenters or critics of the government is being weaponized to silence and retaliate against those who dare to challenge the state power.” said Piyanut Kotsan, Director of Amnesty International.

“Mass prosecutions and denial of bail demonstrate how the justice process is being used as a tool to brazenly attack the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. People are entitled to legitimate rights to express themselves and participate in activities concerning social issues.

“The Thai authorities must stop treating critics as if they are criminals or a threat to national security. They must be released and the charges against them must be immediately dropped in the condition where there is an insufficient evidence under international criminal standard.” said Piyanut.

The detentions increase the number of pro-democracy protesters detained pending trial over demonstrations since the beginning of 2020 demanding the resignation of the prime minister and his cronies, constitutional amendments and monarchy reform.

As of 8 March, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) reported that 18 people are now detained pending trial:

7 leading figures of Ratsadorn, one of the protest organizing groups: Anon Nampa, Parit Chiwarak, Patiwat Saraiyaem, Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, Panusaya Sitthijirawattanakul, Jatupat Boonbattararaksa and Panupong Jadnok. The first 4 have been detained since 9 February. 5 people who have been charged with damage to police vehicles in October 2020: Nathanon Chaimahabut, Thawat Sukprasoet, Sakchai Tangchitsadudi, Somkhit Tosoi and Chaluai Ekasak. They have been detained since 24 February. Chaiamorn ‘Ammy’ Kaewwiboonpan, lead singer of the The Bottom Blues band, detained for allegedly burning a portrait of King Rama X in front of Klong Prem Central Prison. Parinya ‘Port’ Cheewinkulpathom, a member of the self-exiled band ‘Faiyen’, charged under the lèse majesté law over his Facebook post in 2016 and detained since 6 March. 3 people detained since 29 January for allegedly throwing a homemade ‘pingpong’ bomb at the protest at Samyan Mitrtown on 10 January. . Piyarat Chongtep, arrested on 6 March and detained 2 days later. TLHR also reported that 5 people have been sentenced to prison after being found guilty of lèse majesté:

Anchan, sentenced on 19 January 2021 to 43 years. Wichai, sentenced on 24 December 2015 to 30 years and 60 months by a military court. Burin, sentenced on 30 April 2016 to 10 years and 16 months by a military court. Pratin, sentenced on 23 November 2015 to 8 years and 4 months. Prapan, sentenced on 11 May 2021 to 2 years.

Three anti-government leaders have been moved from Bangkok Remand Prison to Thon Buri Remand Prison, where they are being held in quarantine.

Corrections Department chief Ayut Sinthoppan said on Tuesday that Panupong “Mike’’ Jadnok, Jatupat “Pai Dao Din’’ Boonpattararaksa and Piyarat “Toto’’ Chongthep were transferred to Thon Buri on Monday to ease overcrowding at Bangkok Remand Prison.

Prison officials took the three suspects for records and health checks before taking them to the prison’s reception centre for 14-day quarantine as part of Covid-19 prevention measures.

The suspects were put in separate detention rooms. However, there were other prisoners in their rooms, the department chief said.

Mr Panupong and Mr Jatupat are charged with lese majeste and other offences and Mr Piyarat with violating the emergency decree. All charges stem from their roles in anti-government rallies. They have been denied bail

During their trial, prison officials from Bangkok Remand Prison would go to Thon Buri and then escort the defendants to the court, Mr Ayut said.

Asked if there were any worries about supporters of the protest leaders gathering at Thon Buri Remand Prison, he said there was tight security in the area around the prison 24 hours a day.

Prison authorities were not allowing the suspects to have visitors, because they were quarantined under Covid-19 measures, he said.

Another protest leader Panusaya “Rung’’ Sithijirawattanakul had been sent to the Central Women's Correctional Institution, the department chief said.

Soraya Rit-aram, director of the women's prison, said on Tuesday that Ms Panusaya was also in 14-day quarantine. Only lawyers were allowed to visit her, Ms Soraya said.

Justice Minister Somsak Thepsutin on Tuesday confirmed he has plans to expand the Bangkok prison compound for political prisoners, to ease overcrowding when relatives and fellow demonstrators come visiting.

However, he had to look further into the details first.

On 6 March, protesters marched to the judicial court complex on Ratchadapisek Road to express their anger at the lengthy and questionable detention of pro-democracy protesters and political prisoners.

The protest, designated by the Free YOUTH movement under the theme Restart Democracy (REDEM), was one among at least 4 pro-democracy protests held in Bangkok and nearby province, and 1 pro-establishment protest at the Central World, Ratchaprasong.

The protesters started the march at Lat Phrao intersection at around 17.40. 46 were arrested at the scene, including Piyarat Chongthep. They were arrested by an armed police SWAT team while they were at a nearby shopping mall, eating and waiting to attend the protest.

According to their testimony to TLHR, they were rounded up by the police commandos, forced to lie on the ground, had guns pointed at their backs, had their hands tied with cables and had their belongings seized.

They were put into 3 different detention vehicles, 1 of which, containing 18 people, was able to make it to Border Patrol Police Region 1. The other 2 were intercepted by the protesters on Ratchadapisek Road. The cage padlocks on the second vehicle were broken and the WeVo members got out. Another 14 who were sitting in the third vehicle remained inside for 2 hours in total.

At 21.10, a lawyer from TLHR came to see the remaining WeVo members in the third vehicle and took them to Phaholyothin Police Station to present themselves out of fear of being charged with escaping. Those from the second vehicle later followed them to the station, 28 in total.

On 17 March, Phromson Wirathammachari, a protester well-known for his speeches, went to hear a charge of lèse majesté at Thanyaburi Police Station but the police suddenly handed him over to the court, with a request to detain him.

According to TLHR, the court denied Phromson bail, citing the gravity of the charge, the severe penalty, and the likelihood that he would either flee or repeat the offence. The decision led to him being detained at Thanyaburi prison even though was seriously injured from a traffic accident,.

Sasinan Thamnithinan, a TLHR lawyer who went to the police station with Phromson, posted on Facebook an account of the police haste. The post stated that although Phromson came to the station with his injuries to prove that he had no intention to flee, the deputy superintendent (investigation), after the regular investigation stage, suddenly decided to take him to court before the court closed.

Sasinan doubted the police decision because for a detention request, the appointment at the station would be for the morning instead of the afternoon. The police also expressed uneasiness at her attempt to consult with Phromson over this sudden turn of events. The station superintendent gave them 2 minutes to consult in private.

Without being prepared, Sasinan wrote the bail request as fast as she could. However, the court denied bail, giving similar reasons to those in Chukiat’s case.

TLHR reported on 22 March that at least 76 people have been prosecuted under the royal defamation law in 66 cases. 27 cases were filed by ordinary citizens, 5 by the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the rest by the police. 4 of the accused are under the age of 18.

Chukiat ‘Justin’ Saengwong, a pro-democracy protester, was arrested at night on 22 March on a charge of royal defamation and taken into police custody awaiting a court decision on bail. The court then allow the police request for temporary detention.

At 13.01 of 23 March, he was waiting for a court decision on his bail application via a teleconference hearing, according to Bencha Saengchantra, the Move Forward Party MP requesting bail for Chukiat. Bencha also said the police were going to transfer Chukiat to court in the morning, but suddenly changed to a teleconference hearing.

At 17.12, the court denied bail, giving as reasons the seriousness of the charge, the heavy penalty, and the fact that the accused committed similar offences after previously being allowed bail, according to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR). The offence that resulted in his arrest was from his part in the 20 March protest at Sanam Luang, although the offending action has not yet been identified exactly.

Chukiat posted on Facebook at 20.15 on 22 March “The police are taking me to Chanasongkram Police Station. Arrest warrant [Section] 112”. But supporters who went to Chanasongkram Police Station could not find him until he appeared at Huai Kwang Police Station at 23.00.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), whose lawyer was able to meet Chukiat at 00.54 on 23 March, tweeted that the police tried to interrogate Chukiat with a lawyer that they assigned to him and confiscated his phone. Because he objected to this, the police had him handcuffed and detained.