This morning (10 Aug 2026 GMT+7) "Lawyer Toi Pornsak" The authorized representative of the famous host "Noom Kanchai" Attended the scheduled hearing at Bangkok South Criminal Court as the plaintiff suing the former famous actress "Poo Mantana" To investigate defamation and Computer Crime Act charges related to the case where "Poo Mantana" Posted messages on social media accusing that "Noom Kanchai" Sent subordinates to disturb the trial room around April. Recently, "Lawyer Toi" Provided an update on the progress, stating that
For today's preliminary hearing, I am the authorized representative of Brother Noom Kanchai. I gave testimony myself and submitted 31 documents, including physical evidence like various clips related to this case. The main evidence I rely on comes from messages on his own Facebook. Previously, there were other related lawsuits and comments, which I will use to demonstrate the connection about whom the statements refer to. Messages that explicitly name someone are clear, and those clearly linked to Brother Noom confirm it involves him. For messages without direct mention, the court will decide if the content can be reasonably linked to anyone, and will rule accordingly under the law. The charges are defamation and the Computer Crime Act.
The maximum penalty is imprisonment not exceeding 2 years. For the Computer Crime Act, I am not sure if it's 2 or 3 years; it's under Section 12, Paragraph 4, which I have filed charges under. I have submitted all the evidence thoroughly. The rest are facts for the court to consider. The court will announce its ruling on 31 August at 09:00 hrs. As a lawyer, my duty is to prove the facts and present evidence for the court's judgment. Based on my analysis, I am confident that the evidence clearly connects and refers to the accused, constituting an offense. What follows is the court's decision based on my testimony and evidence. Personally, I am confident in our work; it is clear and undeniable that it refers to someone. The fact is that what was posted is untrue and damaged Brother Noom. Legally, even saying “might” causing harm is sufficient to be an offense. I am not declaring guilt—that is for the court to decide—but I am explaining the law as written.
The actual evidence includes photos, audio clips, and witnesses from the incident day. I and Lawyer Kung discussed and requested clips from the court as parties involved that day. However, the court did not allow it, considering the material personal data, so we did not receive the clips. But there were witnesses present that day, who we will call to testify. If the court finds the case has merit, I expect 3-4 witnesses: possibly Poo Lukmee, Lawyer Kung, myself, Brother Noom, and a forensic linguistics expert specializing in language and messages.
Click to readEntertainment newsMore