Da Torpedo wins appeal

Political activisit Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul, alias Da Torpedo

The Appeals Court on Wednesday voided the jail sentence handed down by the Criminal Court on Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul, alias Da Torpedo, for lese majeste on the grounds her petition for a Constitution Court ruling on legal procedures had not been forwarded to the court for consideration.

Daranee was accused of lese majeste in connection with her speeches made at red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) rallies at Sanam Luang on Jan 18, June 7 and June 13, 2008.

The prosecutors, citing Section 177 of the Criminal Procedures Code, asked the Criminal Court to hold the trial in camera and not to allow the people to attend court hearings, reasoning that the case involved the high institution and might affect national security.

Daranee submitted a petition to the court, saying that the prosecutors' request contravened Sections 29 and 40 of the constitution, which provide for an open trial. She asked the Criminal Court to forward her petition to the Constitution Court to rule whether the prosecutors' request was constitutional.

The Criminal Court did not forward her petition to the Constitution Court, but went ahead with the trial and convicted and sentenced Daranee to 18 years in prison on Aug 28, 2009.

Daranee took the case to the Appeal Court.

The Appeals Court announced today it had ruled in her favour and annulled the jail sentence.

The Criminal Court will forward her original petition to the Constitution Court for a ruling whether the prosecutors' request for the trial to be held in camera under Section 177 of the Criminal Procedures Code contravenes Sections 29 and 40 of the constitution.

If the Constitution Court rules in favour of Daranee, the prosecution can request a fresh trial. The charge was not dismissed.

Pending the Constitution Court's ruling, Daranee can request release on bail. The decision rests with the Criminal Court.

UDD chair Thida Thavornseth today filed a fresh request with the Criminal Court for the release on bail of seven red-shirt co-leaders being detained on terrorism charges in Bangkok Remand Prison. Mrs Thida, accompanied by lawyer Narinpong Jinapak, president of the Lawyers Association, offered 600,000 baht as surety for each of the seven suspects: Natthawut Saikua, Weng Tojirakarn, Korkaew Pikulthong, Nisit Sinthuprai, Kwanchai Sarakham, Wiphuthalaeng Pattanaphumthai and Yoswaris Chuklom or Jeng Dokchik. The UDD chair, who is the wife of Dr Weng, said she lowered the surety from three million baht to 600,000 baht because Chaiwat Sinsuwong, a suspect on terrorism charges in connection with the People's Alliance for Democracy's blockade of Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang airports in late 2008, was granted bail with 600,000 baht surety. The court was considering the request.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/220682/jail-sentence-on-da-torpedo-dropped

Amnesty’s silence on lese majeste

By Andrew Walker at New Mandala:

Marwaan Macan-Markar has written an important article for IPS on the (non-)response of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to ongoing lese majeste oppression in Thailand. Here is an extract:

AI [Amnesty International] broke its long silence on lese majeste when Darunee’s case began in June this year. It criticised the court for ordering a closed trial of the proceedings, which a judge on the bench justified as a “matter of national security.”
But AI stayed clear of raising concerns if the law infringed on the right to freedom of expression. Public statements delivered earlier by HRW [Human Rights Watch] have also studiously avoided this fundamental right.
“We have felt that working in a more private capacity than in a public way is the most appropriate and the most effective response on the lese majeste issue to date,” says Benjamin Zawacki, South-east Asia researcher for AI. “There is an implicit knowledge of the sensitivity of this law.”
“There are competing interests at stake; one is the right to freedom of expression. But you have an institution here that has played an important role in the protection of human rights in Thailand,” Zawacki explained in an interview. “We can see why the monarchy needs to be protected.”
The Bangkok-based Zawacki admitted, however, that the law has been abused. “The lese majeste law, as is currently applied in the last three years, has been used for the suppression of free speech for largely political purposes and not for the protection of the monarchy, for which the law was drafted,” he says.

The Asian Human Rights Commission has been more outspoken.
And, in one of his email circulars, Jiles Ungpakorn writes:

In my view, there is little point in writing letters to the Thai authorities about this. However, what would be more useful is to write to Amnesty International and demand that they start taking up and campaigning for lese majeste prisoners in Thailand.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2009/09/05/amnestys-silence-on-lese-majeste/