Appeals court acquits rights activist Andy Hall, endorses research

 

 

The Court of Appeals has acquitted rights activist Andy Hall of defamation, overturning the guilty verdict issued by a lower court.

The lawsuit is related to Hall’s interviews with workers for a Finnwatch report published in 2013. The interviewees alleged labour abuses which, when published by Finnwatch, resulted in legal action against Hall by the pineapple firm Natural Fruit.

 

In 2016, the Bangkok South Criminal Court sentenced Hall to four years’ imprisonment, reduced by one year and suspended by two years. It also ordered him to pay a fine of Bt200,000, reduced to Bt150,000, following his conviction on charges of criminal defamation and computer crimes.

 

On Thursday, the Appeals Court ruled that Hall had not acted unlawfully according to the prosecution’s accusations and promptly pronounced him acquitted of all the charges filed against him. 

 

The Court also ruled further that, based on all the evidence before it, Hall had indeed interviewed migrant workers from Natural Fruit’s factory and there was the real possibility of labour rights violations against migrant workers in the factory, as Finnwatch had alleged in a 2013 report.

 

“The Appeals Court’s decision to acquit Andy Hall is much welcome. It is also a much-needed acknowledgement by Thailand’s justice system that Hall’s work – researching allegations of companies abuse of human rights of migrant workers – is legitimate, not a crime and in the public interest,” said Sonja Vartiala, executive director of Finnwatch.

 

Hall did not attend today’s hearing but was represented in court by his Thai legal defence team.

 

Hall left Thailand at the end of 2016, making clear his intention not to return unless judicial harassment against him ceased.

 

In addition to criminal proceedings, Natural Fruit also filed a compensation lawsuit against Hall. 

 

Last month, the Civil Court ordered Hall to pay Bt10 million in damages to the firm. 

 

Natural Fruit Co Ltd sued Hall for defamation following an interview he gave to Al-Jazeera English TV channel in Myanmar in April 2013.

 

The court also ordered Hall to pay a sum of Bt10,000 for the plaintiff’s lawyer and court fees, and interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of this case until the amount is fully paid. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30346689

 

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-05-31

So does this mean common sense and justice  are  returning

to Thailand .

regards worgeordie

congratulations

keep up the good work

At long last a decision by a court in Thailand to be applauded.

Now, given what he said has been shown to be true, are we going to see action for rights violations against those who brought the spurious charges?

One can also only hope the courts in the civil case, will wake up and revoke the ludicrous compensation claim against him also. After all, if he has done no wrong, how can he be penalised?

I think there might be another appeal..

Good that common sense has prevailed for once but I am still not clear on the B10 million fine they handed out, would he still pay that if the case was overturned I know that would be the case in a functioning justice system but we are talking about Thailand here....

19 minutes ago, johng said:

I think there might be another appeal..

nope.

AFAIK, courts of appeals rulings cannot be appealed, unless based on new evidence or constitutional issues with the ruling.

Congratulations AH

Congratulations to the Appeals Court for doing the right and just thing.

 

Hopefully other courts in LOS will learn from them.

 

Otherwise I can see an avalanche of appeals coming. And rightly so.

55 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

So does this mean common sense and justice  are  returning

to Thailand .

regards worgeordie

I would imagine only in this high profile case where the international community have protested the bias in the system here.

It'll be business as usual tomorrow!

1 minute ago, ChrisY1 said:

I would imagine only in this high profile case where the international community have protested the bias in the system here.

It'll be business as usual tomorrow!

pessimist

1 hour ago, worgeordie said:

So does this mean common sense and justice  are  returning

to Thailand .

regards worgeordie

Short amswer Worgeordie, No.

"Last month, the Civil Court ordered Hall to pay Bt10 million in damages to the firm. 

 

Natural Fruit Co Ltd sued Hall for defamation following an interview he gave to Al-Jazeera English TV channel in Myanmar in April 2013.

 

The court also ordered Hall to pay a sum of Bt10,000 for the plaintiff’s lawyer and court fees, and interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of this case until the amount is fully paid. "

 

 

- Does the reversal of the previous conviction mean that the 10 Million damages is also cancelled.

 

- Why does he have to pay 10,000Baht for the plaintiff's lawyers if he's found not guilty?

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

pessimist

 

Anybody know when the appeals court gives a verdict on the two Myanmar boys in Kao Tao?

...this also confirms once and for all that this lot's jurisdiction does not have the reach it so craves.

 

 

1 hour ago, worgeordie said:

So does this mean common sense and justice  are  returning

to Thailand .

regards worgeordie

NO...

Quote

In addition to criminal proceedings, Natural Fruit also filed a compensation lawsuit against Hall. 

 

Last month, the Civil Court ordered Hall to pay Bt10 million in damages to the firm. 

 

Natural Fruit Co Ltd sued Hall for defamation following an interview he gave to Al-Jazeera English TV channel in Myanmar in April 2013.

 

The court also ordered Hall to pay a sum of Bt10,000 for the plaintiff’s lawyer and court fees, and interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of this case until the amount is fully paid. 

Not until that is overturned...

 

And Natural Fruit pays legal costs and damages to Hall and all the others who have been trying for years to get justice, and those who have have been behind this travesty of persecution are behind bars. 

 

There should be a world ban on Natural Foods. 

 

17 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

Anybody know when the appeals court gives a verdict on the two Myanmar boys in Kao Tao?

Probably a long time after there release.

34 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

- Does the reversal of the previous conviction mean that the 10 Million damages is also cancelled.

No, he was appealing the verdict and penalty of the criminal court and not the civil court.  

12 minutes ago, kingkenny said:

No, he was appealing the verdict and penalty of the criminal court and not the civil court.  

Thank you, now understand.

Sometimes, just sometimes, Thailand surprises me in a positive way.

9 minutes ago, Somtamnication said:

Sometimes, just sometimes, Thailand surprises me in a positive way.

Don't worry, it's just a temporary aberration. It'll be business as usual again tomorrow.

2 hours ago, Jonathan Fairfield said:

On Thursday, the Appeals Court ruled that Hall had not acted unlawfully according to the prosecution’s accusations and promptly pronounced him acquitted of all the charges filed against him. 

Hope the courts continue to challenge the golden circle's arrogance and self obessed ways. 

1 hour ago, Basil B said:

NO...

Not until that is overturned...

 

And Natural Fruit pays legal costs and damages to Hall and all the others who have been trying for years to get justice, and those who have have been behind this travesty of persecution are behind bars. 

 

There should be a world ban on Natural Foods. 

 

Careful. Natural Fruit Co. might be coming after you next. I wouldn't put it past these %^*holes. 

2 hours ago, mark131v said:

Good that common sense has prevailed for once but I am still not clear on the B10 million fine they handed out, would he still pay that if the case was overturned I know that would be the case in a functioning justice system but we are talking about Thailand here....

The 10mil THB are damages sought by the company in a separate civil case lodged by the plaintiff. It is not a fine by the gov't.

Think of OJ. He was found not guilty in the criminal case where the plaintiff was the gov't/district attorney's office. Then found responsible for the 2 deaths in a civil court where the plaintiffs were the victims' families. And he had to pay. 

 

Andy's troubles are far from over. But if he loses the civil case, he simply does not have to pay so long as he never returns to Thailand.

16 minutes ago, InfinityandBeyond said:

Careful. Natural Fruit Co. might be coming after you next. I wouldn't put it past these %^*holes. 

I was just expressing an opinion...

 

Likewise Andy is not saying people should boycott there products but does help those who wish to avoid there products.

https://andyjhall.wordpress.com/case/natural-fruit/ 

 

I am sure Natural Foods have already asked WordPress to block his site and they have not because there is nothing wrong with it.

Edited May 31, 20188 yr by Basil B

5 minutes ago, Basil B said:

I was just expressing an opinion...

 

Likewise Andy is not saying people should boycott there products but does help those who wish to avoid there products.

https://andyjhall.wordpress.com/case/natural-fruit/ 

 

I am sure Natural Foods have already asked WordPress to block his site and they have not because there is nothing wrong with it.

Hi Bas. I didn't mean to sound threatening in my reply to your post. 

I agree wholeheartedly to avoid their products. 

When I "warned" you in my reply,  I was just having a go at the ultra-rich that believe they are above the law and not your post. 

My reply was meant as a humourous commentary on the tragic state of (in)justice in this place...where the rich flout the law and use their wealth to bring  defamation suits against whistle-blowers and "influence" the judiciary.

 

I think this co. produces several products under various brands. 

 

Mr. Google has been excellent in helping me make more ethical consumer choices.  

 

 

7 minutes ago, InfinityandBeyond said:

Hi Bas. I didn't mean to sound threatening in my reply to your post. 

I agree wholeheartedly to avoid their products. 

When I "warned" you in my reply,  I was just having a go at the ultra-rich that believe they are above the law and not your post. 

My reply was meant as a humourous commentary on the tragic state of (in)justice in this place...where the rich flout the law and use their wealth to bring  defamation suits against whistle-blowers and "influence" the judiciary.

 

I think this co. produces several products under various brands. 

 

Mr. Google has been excellent in helping me make more ethical consumer choices.  

 

 

I did not take it any other way...

 

Like Andy I have no plans on returning to Thailand any day soon, not that I do not want to but due work commitments.

2 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

Anybody know when the appeals court gives a verdict on the two Myanmar boys in Kao Tao?

The police and the courts have buried that case BUT Andy Hall was involved with their defence team So there might be some movement there but only if Andy Hall can push it 

4 hours ago, worgeordie said:

So does this mean common sense and justice  are  returning

to Thailand .

regards worgeordie

sounds like a common sense result, but as for returning -- well that's another story …. 

3 hours ago, sweatalot said:

pessimist

realist 

13 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

Anybody know when the appeals court gives a verdict on the two Myanmar boys in Kao Tao?

An interesting question. It has been suggested on other forums that since Andy Hall no longer seems to be trumpeting the Koh Tao case for which allegedly a considerable sum of money was raised that a deal was done to clear him. Ive seen some of the crime scene photos, statements and rulings for the Koh Tao case and I would suggest there are few countries in the world where this case would have been prosecuted. Andy Hall is no fool and a fool could have defended the Burmese boys. Taking the worst case scenario even if they did murder David and Hannah there was no clear evidence to confirm that they did.