The Appeals Court upheld the dismissal of charges against Chorn Panthika under the Computer Crime Act concerning her Facebook post of the "Long Poem Forecasting Ayutthaya," ruling that the elements of the offense were not met.
At 10:00 a.m. on 11 March 2026, the Criminal Court convened to hear the Appeals Court judgment in case number Or. 567/2022, where the Criminal Prosecutor's Office 8 acted as plaintiff. Ms. Panthika Wanich, an executive committee member of the Progressive Movement, was the defendant, charged with violating the Computer Crime Act of 2007, Section 14 (2) and its 2017 amendment, Section 8, for allegedly introducing false computer data likely to harm national security or cause public panic.
The prosecution alleged that between 21 November 2013 and 9 June 2019, the defendant posted messages on Facebook related to the institution involving the "Long Poem Forecasting Ayutthaya," which were false and harmed the Thai public's sentiment, causing division among citizens and public alarm affecting the economy, national security, and public welfare. The defendant denied these charges.
After examining evidence from both parties, the Criminal Court found the defendant's actions did not violate the Computer Crime Act or related laws. The prosecution appealed for punishment. The Appeals Court reviewed the case and deliberated on whether the defendant was guilty as charged. It noted that the "Long Poem Forecasting Ayutthaya" had previously been published and distributed by the Kurusapha Organization. The defendant’s actions did not cause public alarm or affect national security, the economy, or public utilities, and fell within citizens’ constitutional rights to express opinions and critique.
Therefore, the defendant’s actions did not meet the criteria for offenses under the Computer Crime Act. The Appeals Court agreed with the lower court's dismissal and rejected the prosecution's appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Later, at 12:38 p.m., Ms. Panthika posted a message onFacebookstating: “What I want society to recognize is that I have already been acquitted of criminal charges by two courts, yet the Supreme Court revoked my political rights for life due to severe violations of parliamentary ethics. Part of the facts that led to my acquittal in the criminal court were also considered in the ethics case. This contradiction should not happen to anyone else. Courts should interpret the law, not judge politicians' ethics.”