Yingluck case ‘technically over’ in absence of appeals

[webfact]

Yingluck case ‘technically over’ in absence of appeals

By THE NATION

 

File photo: Yingluck Shinawatra

 

THE CRIMINAL case against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra for her role in the rice-pledging scheme technically closed on Friday when neither Yingluck nor the prosecutor submitted an appeal, her lawyer and the prosecutor both confirmed yesterday.

Yingluck, who is reportedly in the United Kingdom, was sentenced to five years in jail for her negligence in preventing corruption and irregularities in her government’s rice-pledging scheme before the 2014 coup. 

 

The Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders convicted her in absentia and announced her prison sentence on September 27. The law allows her to appeal within 30 days of the date of the verdict delivery, but she would have to launch the appeal in person from inside Thailand.

 

“We have not yet received contact from her, therefore we did not make any request to the court to extend the period of appeal,” said her lawyer Norawit Lalang. “As we did not make an appeal, the case is technically final.”

 

Yingluck fled the country a few days before the court had originally been due to deliver its verdict on August 25 and Norawit said he had received no contact from his client since then. 

 

The court issued an arrest warrant following her failure to turn up in August and delivered its verdict in absentia when she again missed her court appearance on September 27. 

 

‘Location unknown’

 

State prosecutor Surasak Tritrattrakul said that since neither of the involved parties had made any appeals to the court, the case was now final and authorities would enforce the verdict to compel Yingluck to serve her sentence.

 

However, Yingluck’s location is still unknown, authorities have said. Local media reports, citing unnamed sources, have said she is in London, where her brother Thaksin Shinawatra has a home. While some reports said she was seeking political asylum in the UK, Thai officials were unable to verify the claim. 

 

Police have said they have asked cooperation from Interpol to force Yingluck to be returned to Thailand to serve her sentence but there still remained no clear clues about her whereabouts. 

 

The junta has shifted blame for her disappearance to a police officer. Pol Colonel Chairit Anurit of the Metropolitan Police allegedly drove Yingluck to Sa Kaew province on August 23 and has been dismissed from duty. 

 

This follows a police fact-finding committee’s ruling that the officer committed a grave disciplinary offence. He had also committed a lesser breach of the code of conduct for illegal use of a vehicle, the committee ruled. 

 

Yingluck is not the only person convicted in the controversial case – ministers in her cabinet and many senior government officials were found to be involved in the fraud, which cost the country hundreds of billions of baht. 

 

Yingluck’s former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom was jailed for 42 years and former deputy commerce minister Phumi Saraphol was sentenced to 36 years. 

 

Both men have submitted appeals to the court.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30330344

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-10-30

[Samui Bodoh]

“As we did not make an appeal, the case is technically final.”

 

Hmm...

 

So, "technically", justice was done?

 

 

[bristolgeoff]

what a surprise she has dissappeared off the face of the earth until she wants to be found

[ezzra]

17 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"technically"

Technically in Thailand really means that all cards are still on the

table and the case is still open for any new developments, 

should in the future, a more favorable PM or government will come to 

rule,  her case the case of her brother will miraculously will

be rejuvenated and some how an appeal will be lodged....

[sandrew33]

3 hours ago, ezzra said:

Technically in Thailand really means that all cards are still on the

table and the case is still open for any new developments, 

should in the future, a more favorable PM or government will come to 

rule,  her case the case of her brother will miraculously will

be rejuvenated and some how an appeal will be lodged....

More favourable is an interesting term. 

 

One might argue that ANY future government, including one that simply applied all laws equally and fairly to all, would be more favourable to the Shins then this one. 

 

Which is the fundamental point. 

 

Even the appeal law was changed at the last minute to remove the ability for her to appeal. So, technically, what just happened was lawful. But not under laws as applied at the time of the alledged offences :) 

[yellowboat]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Police have said they have asked cooperation from Interpol to force Yingluck to be returned to Thailand to serve her sentence but there still remained no clear clues about her whereabouts. 

Doubt it is much of a priority for Interpol. Sure they have far more important things to do. 

[metisdead]

A post containing a disallowed description of the PM has been removed. 

[greenchair]

52 minutes ago, sandrew33 said:

More favourable is an interesting term. 

 

One might argue that ANY future government, including one that simply applied all laws equally and fairly to all, would be more favourable to the Shins then this one. 

 

Which is the fundamental point. 

 

Even the appeal law was changed at the last minute to remove the ability for her to appeal. So, technically, what just happened was lawful. But not under laws as applied at the time of the alledged offences :) 

 

That's the thing, in almost all of these cases to yingluck and some of the other political corruption cases, the law of the time had to be changed in order to prosecute and convict them. Which I find hard to understand because there is a law that says if a law is changed after comitting an offence, the law that is most favourable to the defendant shall be applied. Technically she and others could not have been prosecuted with the laws that they had. 

[Media1]

Yes they did a Stella job of robbing her. Thai courts are a farce and the unreformed judicial system served the regime a treat lol. 

The country has taken a big step in reverse gear unfortunately. I wish them well. The peasants have a hard road ahead.

[Media1]

50 minutes ago, greenchair said:

 

That's the thing, in almost all of these cases to yingluck and some of the other political corruption cases, the law of the time had to be changed in order to prosecute and convict them. Which I find hard to understand because there is a law that says if a law is changed after comitting an offence, the law that is most favourable to the defendant shall be applied. Technically she and others could not have been prosecuted with the laws that they had. 

Easy to understand there cowboys

[robblok]

1 hour ago, greenchair said:

 

That's the thing, in almost all of these cases to yingluck and some of the other political corruption cases, the law of the time had to be changed in order to prosecute and convict them. Which I find hard to understand because there is a law that says if a law is changed after comitting an offence, the law that is most favourable to the defendant shall be applied. Technically she and others could not have been prosecuted with the laws that they had. 

To back up what you said.. . could you explain to me how the law on criminal negligence has been changed what amendments have been made and when. Its easy to sprout stuff but a lot harder to prove it.

[sawadeeken]

2 hours ago, sandrew33 said:

More favourable is an interesting term. 

 

One might argue that ANY future government, including one that simply applied all laws equally and fairly to all, would be more favourable to the Shins then this one. 

 

Which is the fundamental point. 

 

Even the appeal law was changed at the last minute to remove the ability for her to appeal. So, technically, what just happened was lawful. But not under laws as applied at the time of the alledged offences :) 

I don't know the laws you refer to........ And I CAN'T believe you do either... (and yet you post as if you are so 'informed'.......... (Sooooo common on here....... )

FOR ONE GOOD REASON...... That is that she had a legal team, Maybe the 'best money could buy', and they didn't use 'that LAW'..... To save her 'precious butt'.......... LOL............

[seajae]

she had every chance to challenge the verdict and didnt, can only mean she knows she was guilty or an appeal would have been lodged. There will be those that will argue this but they cannot deny it happened, the guilty run away, not the innocent, she did the  same as her brother and others that are guilty, even truck/bus drivers do it here, they know they have done the wring thing and dont want to face up to it. 

[Sydebolle]

Well, as of today it is bashing, blaming and finger pointing as usual again ........... 

[tbthailand]

Now it is "technically" over.

 

"Practically", it was over on May 22 2014

[tbthailand]

3 minutes ago, seajae said:

she had every chance to challenge the verdict and didnt, can only mean she knows she was guilty or an appeal would have been lodged.

your logic is impeccable, ... 

[sawadeeken]

1 minute ago, Sydebolle said:

Well, as of today it is bashing, blaming and finger pointing as usual again ........... 

"finger pointing"

Get used to it........... LOL........... TIT..........

In Thailand it must be a 'requirement'.......... LOL...........

Just look at all the pictures in the 'Thai Press' to see what I mean....... And of course.... This forum us about Thailand......... (In many cases)..........

[Happyman58]

31 minutes ago, Sydebolle said:

Well, as of today it is bashing, blaming and finger pointing as usual again ........... 

Yep it will all be back to normal Lots of Road deaths corruption murders Happy days

[hobobo]

It looks like a perfect outcome for both the junta and Yingluck, though neither party would admit it.

[Ossy]

As Roy so beautifully sang,

It's over, it's over, it's over

All the rainbows in the sky
Start to weep then say goodbye
You won't be seeing rainbows anymore

'It's over . . . it's over . . . it's over;

Well, I'm over it.

 

[mikiea]

7 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

“As we did not make an appeal, the case is technically final.”

 

Hmm...

 

So, "technically", justice was done?

 

 

No one eants her to return,  never did,  

[Eric Loh]

Sentencing was for her negligence in the G2G rice case. Boonsong will be appealing. Matter of wise use of resources to try win the appeal and if that happen, her sentencing will be controversial and opens up a possibility of a counter sue for injustice. Maybe , maybe not.  

[farcanell]

2 hours ago, greenchair said:

Which I find hard to understand because there is a law that says if a law is changed after comitting an offence, the law that is most favourable to the defendant shall be applied

Ah... you no unnerstan... they change that law, too! 

[farcanell]

The file photo supplied in this article is classic.... if only she was waving with one digit raised 

[Dogmatix]

4 hours ago, sandrew33 said:

More favourable is an interesting term. 

 

One might argue that ANY future government, including one that simply applied all laws equally and fairly to all, would be more favourable to the Shins then this one. 

 

Which is the fundamental point. 

 

Even the appeal law was changed at the last minute to remove the ability for her to appeal. So, technically, what just happened was lawful. But not under laws as applied at the time of the alledged offences :) 

 

The ‘appeal law’ was not changed at the last minute to prevent her from appealing. The organic law pursuant to the new constitution was in fact completed for the first time in time for all the defendants in the rice cases to appeal. This is important for those who are still in the country and now in prison, Boonsong et al, and facing lengthy sentences. The previous constitution did not permit appeal unless new evidence was presented and, even then, it had to be heard by the same judges in the same court. The organic law under the new Comstitution is much fairer to defendants. 

 

Yingluck probably made a better choice in not appealing and leaving Thailand for the rest of her life anyway. It is a choice I am sure Boonsong, Pham et al would have greatly preferred to staying to lodge their appeals. 

[Dogmatix]

Yingluck’s case in Thailand is now closed but her years of applications and appeals for political asylum in the UK have only just begun.

[Formaleins]

4 hours ago, sandrew33 said:

More favourable is an interesting term. 

 

One might argue that ANY future government, including one that simply applied all laws equally and fairly to all, would be more favourable to the Shins then this one. 

 

Which is the fundamental point. 

 

Even the appeal law was changed at the last minute to remove the ability for her to appeal. So, technically, what just happened was lawful. But not under laws as applied at the time of the alledged offences :) 

Yes, those dastardly people drawing up the laws must have learned quite a lot from the Nurnenburg trials after WWII. 

[Dogmatix]

3 hours ago, greenchair said:

 

That's the thing, in almost all of these cases to yingluck and some of the other political corruption cases, the law of the time had to be changed in order to prosecute and convict them. Which I find hard to understand because there is a law that says if a law is changed after comitting an offence, the law that is most favourable to the defendant shall be applied. Technically she and others could not have been prosecuted with the laws that they had. 

She was prosecuted under Section 157 of the Penal Code which has not been changed.

 

What changed was the provisions for appeals in cases tried in the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders which was enshrined in the 2007 Constitution and the organic law pursuant to it. It would be be impossible to use the previous organic laws because they were revoked along with the Constitution in 2014. At any rate the previous organic law was far less favourable to the rice cases defendants, who are not limited to Yingluck herself.

[Dogmatix]

11 minutes ago, Formaleins said:

Yes, those dastardly people drawing up the laws must have learned quite a lot from the Nurnenburg trials after WWII. 

 

Nonsense. Nothing changed that effected Yingluck’s conviction or sentence. The change was that she was given the new right to appeal, which she chose not to take up.

[greenchair]

15 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

She was prosecuted under Section 157 of the Penal Code which has not been changed.

 

What changed was the provisions for appeals in cases tried in the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders which was enshrined in the 2007 Constitution and the organic law pursuant to it. It would be be impossible to use the previous organic laws because they were revoked along with the Constitution in 2014. At any rate the previous organic law was far less favourable to the rice cases defendants, who are not limited to Yingluck herself.

What changed is she is the first person in the history of the world that was prosecuted for a policy that failed and the corruption of others of which she recieved no benefit. I can't imagine there is a single thai pm present or past that has not violated 157 if you want to look at it like that.