The South Bangkok Criminal Court acquitted "Tawan" and seven others of charges under Sections 112 and 116 but imposed a fine of 5,000 baht each for violating official orders.
At 10:30 a.m. on 6 Jul 2022 GMT+7, the South Bangkok Criminal Court on Charoen Krung Road convened to deliver the verdict in case number A765/2565, involving the Public Prosecutor from the Office of the Attorney General as the plaintiff and Ms. Thantawan Tutulanon, defendant number 1, along with seven others.
The plaintiff charged and amended charges seeking punishment for all eight defendants for jointly committing defamation, insult, or malice toward the King, Queen, Crown Prince, or Regent; jointly causing public display of acts not intended under the Constitution or not for honest opinion or critique, aiming to cause unrest or discord among the public to the extent of disturbing peace in the kingdom or inducing law violations; jointly insulting officials performing duties; jointly obstructing officials in duty; and jointly disobeying official orders issued under lawful authority.
All eight defendants denied the charges.
During proceedings, defendant number 3, Ms. Netiporn, passed away, and thus criminal prosecution rights ceased. Her case was removed from the court records.
A key issue was whether defendants 1, 2, and 4–8 were guilty of jointly defaming, insulting, or maliciously harming the King, Queen, Crown Prince, or Regent, or causing public disturbance not protected by the Constitution, under Sections 112 and 116 of the Penal Code. The court considered that acts constituting Section 112 violations must involve disparagement, slander, or insulting conduct causing offense to the royal dignity, or misuse of freedoms in an adverse manner. The law must be applied cautiously, upholding rule of law, fairness, and equality, without political bias or favoritism.
Upon reviewing the evidence, including the sticker messages inviting public participation questioning whether the royal motorcade caused public inconvenience, the court found these were merely interrogative statements not specifically targeting protected individuals by name or implication. The stickers did not constitute propaganda or disparagement of the monarchy. The defendants had not made speeches or comments likely to harm royal prestige or show malice. Even the later display of the three-finger salute by defendants 1 and 2 was a physical expression of personal freedoms protected under Section 34 of the Constitution, regardless of agreement or disagreement by others.
As the defendants' actions fell within constitutional aims and were honest opinions, and there was no evidence from the plaintiff of public disorder or law violations caused by them, the court found no guilt under Sections 112 and 116 as charged.
Another issue was whether defendants 1, 2, and 4–8 violated official orders issued under lawful authority. Under the Public Assembly Act B.E. 2558 (2015), Section 7 prohibits assemblies within 150 meters of the Grand Palace, royal residences, or those of senior royals. Since defendants 1 and 2 organized an unauthorized assembly within this radius, the gathering was unlawful. Local police officials authorized under the Security Act B.E. 2560 (2017) had the authority to order dispersal and removal from this area. The defendants were aware of the order but failed to comply without reasonable excuse, violating Section 368 of the Penal Code.
The court further examined whether defendants 1, 2, 4–6, and 8 obstructed officials in their duties. Video evidence showed only defendant 6, a man in black long sleeves and hat, and a boy named Suai pushing against barriers set by officials. Defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 did not participate in this. Since the plaintiff did not charge the man in black as a co-offender, defendant 6 could only be held responsible alongside the boy. Defendant 6 was thus found guilty of obstructing officials under Section 138, first paragraph.
Lastly, the court considered whether defendant 4 insulted officials performing their duties. Before defendant 4 made the alleged insulting remarks, an ununiformed man grabbed defendant 1 and lifted him, causing a scuffle. Defendant 4 did not know the man was a police officer. Although defendant 4's words were somewhat harsh, they were made in defense of another's rights and remained within legal bounds. Therefore, the court found no offense of insulting an official as charged.
The court ruled that defendants 1, 2, and 4–8 were guilty under Section 368 of the Penal Code for disobeying official orders, and defendant 6 was guilty under Section 138, first paragraph, for obstructing officials. Defendant 6’s acts constituted multiple offenses and was sentenced for each accordingly. Each defendant was fined 5,000 baht for disobeying orders. Defendant 6 was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for obstruction, increased by one-third under Section 92 to four months, plus a 5,000 baht fine. Failure to pay fines would be enforced under Sections 29 and 30. The court ordered the return of the seized signs to their owner. Other charges and requests were dismissed.