Thai Court Allows Jatuporn To Stay Out Of Jail

[webfact]

REDS LEADERS

Court allows Jatuporn to stay out of jail

By Kesinee Taengkhio,

Piyanuch Tamnukasetchai

The Nation

The Criminal Court yesterday rejected an application to revoke bail for Pheu Thai MP Jatuporn Promphan, saying there was no significant shift in circumstances to warrant a review about him being held in custody.

The Department of Special Investigation cited witness intimidation and obstruction of justice as grounds for Jatuporn to be held in remand before facing charges of terrorism related to the red-shirt rally.

The DSI submitted its arguments as part of a prosecution writ asking the court to cancel Jatuporn's temporary release granted because of his parliamentary immunity.

DSI chief Tharit Pengdit said the House of Representatives went into recess on November 29, so Jatuporn no longer had immunity as an MP.

Tharit said Jatuporn had repeatedly violated the condition of his bail by attempting to obstruct the DSI investigation.

"Jatuporn has spread lies and false allegations designed to smear the DSI and derail the investigation," he said in the prosecution writ.

Since his release, Jatuporn has been involved in a series of rallies at Bangkok Remand Prison aimed at pressuring the government to release fellow red-shirt leaders held in custody.

He was a key organiser who addressed crowds at the red-shirt rallies, in defiance of the state of emergency.

On October 10, he allegedly phoned state witness Methee Amornwuthikul. He allegedly lashed out at Methee for betraying the red-shirt movement, saying a traitor like Methee would suffer a backlash without any place to stay or live. In the DSI's view, such remarks could be construed as intimidation to silence a witness.

Jatuporn's behaviour was in contrast to that of two other released suspects, Veera Musigapong and Karun Hosakul. Veera and Karun did not try to interfere with the DSI investigation or resume instigating disturbances.

Speaking after filing the writ, Tharit said he was doing his job based on evidence and that he had no personal grudges against Jatuporn.

After hearing of the court's decision, Tharit said the DSI would keep an eye on Jatuporn and if it found more evidence of threatening behaviour, he would lodge a further request for the MP to be detained.

In his rebuttal, Jatuporn lodged two petitions with the Supreme Court president's office. His defence team also submitted counter-arguments for the DSI.

He said his first petition sought to remove a judge from the libel trial after the prime minister sued him. The judge in question might be prejudiced because he invited Abhisit Vejjajiva to his daughter's wedding.

In the second petition, he said the DSI had no justification to revoke his bail since he had never made a call to the state witness as alleged.

He said he suspected Tharit tried to frame him because of animosity.

-- The Nation 2010-12-08

[TheyCallmeScooter]

The Criminal Court yesterday rejected an application to revoke bail for Pheu Thai MP Jatuporn Promphan, saying there was no significant shift in circumstances to warrant a review about him being held in custody.

He was released on bail citing Parliamentary privilege.

Parliament is no longer in session.

Can someone explain to me what is going on? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone and everyone is in on the joke except for me?

Members of the National Assembly enjoy parliamentary privilege which were enshrined in the constitution, these include: the "words expressed in giving statements of fact or opinions or in casting the vote" in a joint sitting of the National Assembly, No member of the House of Representatives or Senator shall, during a session, be arrested, detained or summoned by a warrant for an inquiry as the suspect in a criminal case unless permission of the House of which he or she is a member is obtained or he or she is arrested in flagrante delicto.

He shouldn't have been arrested unless he was arrested in flagrante delicto. If he wasn't in flagrante delicto, I would think we'd have heard something about that before now. So parliamentary privilege extends when Parliament is no longer in session? Or when the member is no longer a member? Seems almost like a "get-out-of-jail-free" card for MPs.

Someone should update the Wikipedia entry for Thailand's Parliament.

Let's hope BJT don't find out about this.

[Buchholz]

Can someone explain to me what is going on? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone and everyone is in on the joke except for me?

In the original thread, it reveals that he was released on a one million baht bail in June after his initial parliamentary exemption expired.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

After hearing of the court's decision, Tharit said the DSI would keep an eye on Jatuporn and if it found more evidence of threatening behaviour, he would lodge a further request for the MP to be detained.

That's one way to react to a Court decision you disagree with. There's a couple other ways, in Thailand. That I've seen so far...

He was a key organiser who addressed crowds at the red-shirt rallies, in defiance of the state of emergency.

Unless I am horribly misinformed as to what the SoE prescribed in regards to organising and addressing rallies, seems like the Nation and the Criminal Court disagree on something. Miscommunication perhaps...

In the second petition, he said the DSI had no justification to revoke his bail since he had never made a call to the state witness as alleged.

I thought they were revoking it based on Parliamentary privilege no longer applying, under their understanding of the constitution's definition of "in session". Now I'm even more confused...

Boy, this is scary stuff. Should I be shutting my trap right about now?

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Can someone explain to me what is going on? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone and everyone is in on the joke except for me?

In the original thread, it reveals that he was released on a one million baht bail in June after his initial parliamentary exemption expired.

Oh thank heavens! I completely missed that! What's all this talk been in the media about parliamentary privilege and whether or not his bail would be revoked when the last session closed? I am sure I could find a stack of examples...oh, here's one in the above article:

The DSI submitted its arguments as part of a prosecution writ asking the court to cancel Jatuporn's temporary release granted because of his parliamentary immunity.

DSI chief Tharit Pengdit said the House of Representatives went into recess on November 29, so Jatuporn no longer had immunity as an MP.

Sounds like DSI were also confused. I don't feel so silly now...

[Buchholz]

When the Parliament reconvened, his parliamentary exemption restarted. In essence, for that time, he had both parliamentary exemption AND bail.

When Parliament just recently ended another session again, DSI requested the bail, based on the million baht, be revoked.

It was that request that was just denied.

What's confusing also is that apparently Veera had different conditions established when he was granted a cash bail for 6 million baht. Essentially, he was released with a "cease and desist" type order. Why Jatuporn's cash bail seemingly didn't have the same conditions is a mystery. If they had included that, then his multiple violations of that condition would have been glaringly obvious and revocation would then have been easy and straight-forward.

.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Buchholz

[asiawatcher]

When the Parliament reconvened, his parliamentary exemption restarted. In essence, for that time, he had both parliamentary exemption AND bail.

When Parliament just recently ended another session again, DSI requested the bail, based on the million baht, be revoked.

It was that request that was just denied.

What's confusing also is that apparently Veera had different conditions established when he was granted a cash bail for 6 million baht. Essentially, he was released with a "cease and desist" type order. Why Jatuporn's cash bail seemingly didn't have the same conditions is a mystery. If they had included that, then his multiple violations of that condition would have been glaringly obvious and revocation would then have been easy and straight-forward..

Yes obviously more haste less speed and in this case, the lawyers on the side of the DSI did not do their homework. But Jutaporn is certainly a law unto himself and held accountable by none. He can afford the right legal teams as Takky paid a lot for his loyalty.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

When the Parliament reconvened, his parliamentary exemption restarted. In essence, for that time, he had both parliamentary exemption AND bail.

When Parliament just recently ended another session again, DSI requested the bail, based on the million baht, be revoked.

It was that request that was just denied.

What's confusing also is that apparently Veera had different conditions established when he was granted a cash bail for 6 million baht. Essentially, he was released with a "cease and desist" type order. Why Jatuporn's cash bail seemingly didn't have the same conditions is a mystery. If they had included that, then his multiple violations of that condition would have been glaringly obvious and revocation would then have been easy and straight-forward.

Can I bother you for a link to where it's explained that he wasn't out on bail due to Parliamentary privilege? I've found heaps about the cash bail in June but that was only for a limited time and every report I'm reading since has cited whilst Parliamentary privilege as the reason for his bail. You don't need to post a cash bail when you have Parliamentary privilege right? You absolutely shouldn't have to, imo. I've found a verifiable news report which stated the Court would rule on his bail on June 23 but for the life of me, nothing about it I can find anywhere and nothing about an extension. Every single report I can find suggest Parliament immunity was cited...I've come across some stuff that is hella confusing and suggests all sorts of shenanigans on those tasked with prosecuting him.

It's been a day of firsts. Whilst trying to follow the fascinating bail saga (unsuccessfully), I came across a discovery that knocked me off my chair re: the judicial process with Bout. I've read for over 3 hrs in Bout threads and if a single person mentioned it correctly on TV, I've somehow missed it. And almost every single news article posted misrepresented or vaguely (effectively untruthfully) skirted around it - some Russian ones outright lied about it. It's highly possible everyone is aware of it and uncomfortable with the nature of it but I been researching for 4 hrs now and just want to understand the treaty and how this all went down. Although it's on-topic (indirectly I guess), to avoid taking thread OT, can I pls request advice when I can start a thread on it? (News sub-forum OPs must be webfact or george or News_Editor, and I'm pretty sure news-related discussions in in General aren't appropriate? - although it's more about the Treaty and procedural than outright News, so maybe it's okay? It's probably best suited to Legal or Law discussion but can't see any sub-forums for those? Maybe good idea for one?)

[Buchholz]

When the Parliament reconvened, his parliamentary exemption restarted. In essence, for that time, he had both parliamentary exemption AND bail.

When Parliament just recently ended another session again, DSI requested the bail, based on the million baht, be revoked.

It was that request that was just denied.

What's confusing also is that apparently Veera had different conditions established when he was granted a cash bail for 6 million baht. Essentially, he was released with a "cease and desist" type order. Why Jatuporn's cash bail seemingly didn't have the same conditions is a mystery. If they had included that, then his multiple violations of that condition would have been glaringly obvious and revocation would then have been easy and straight-forward.

Can I bother you for a link to where it's explained that he wasn't out on bail due to Parliamentary privilege? I've found heaps about the cash bail in June but that was only for a limited time and every report I'm reading since has cited whilst Parliamentary privilege as the reason for his bail.

He was free on parliamentary exemption as Parliament was in session right up until just before the June cash bail was done. The June bail hearing occurred because prior to that he was exempt. That is why he had been free when all the other Red leaders had already been jailed.

When Parliament re-opened for a new session (not sure of the date) the cash bail became the # 2 priority reason for his being free (# 1 being parliamentary exemption).

When Parliament adjourned again (just recently), # 1 was eliminated and # 2 became # 1. The DSI sought to revoke his bail based upon the new #1.

You don't need to post a cash bail when you have Parliamentary privilege right?

Yes, it's free.

I've noticed myself that during the time frame between May to the Present, that various news reports erroneously list parliamentary immunity as the reason for his being out on bail. Those written during the times when Parliament was not in session were inaccurate.

.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Buchholz

[TheyCallmeScooter]

When Parliament re-opened for a new session (not sure of the date) the cash bail became the # 2 priority reason for his being free (# 1 being parliamentary exemption).

When Parliament adjourned again (just recently), # 1 was eliminated and # 2 became # 1. The DSI sought to revoke his bail based upon the new #1.

That's not what it says in the article above though? Unless the argument being made by the DSI is that...nah, that would be a terrible argument if he was free on Bail #1. If they aren't presented with any evidence or don't accept the arguments for reversing Bail #1 (phone call log ostensibly shown to DSI by Methee - did that exist? heard nothing about that since), of course they'll reject an application that's based purely on Parliament no longer in session.

But I'm looking at this report:

18.06.10The Criminal Court on June 8, when the DSI first sought their detention, released Mr Jatuporn and Mr Karun on bail of one million baht each and asked them to report to the court on Friday, June 18. The first detention period expires this Sunday, June 20.

On Friday morning, the DSI asked th court to approve the detention of Mr Jatuporn and Mr Karun for another 12 days, from June 20 to July 1, and opposed further bail for Mr Jatuporn. The court today again released the two accused on bail and, following an examination of witnesses, set June 23 to deliver a decision on the DSI's objection to bail for Mr Jatuporn.

For the life of me, I cannot find a single thing on Google about any June 23 decision. That's when his B1mil bail ran out, according to the above.

29.07.10His Majesty the King has issued a Royal Command, countersigned by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, for parliament to reconvene in ordinary session on Aug 1.

Parliament resumes August 1.

07.12.10: Mr Jatuporn is accused of terrorism relating to the April-May red-shirt protest in Bangkok but earlier invoked parliamentary privilege to claim immunity from arrest and was allowed bail.

That immunity lapsed recently when the House went into recess.

Every single source that I can find since has stated Parliamentary immunity.

What about this from last year! What happened with this trial? I can't find anything on this either...

07.12.09: The UDD leaders -- including Veera Musikhapong, Jatuporn Promphan, Nattawut Saikua and Weng Tochirakarn - have been charged with violating the Criminal Code and the emergency law by leading the red-shirts' anti-government protests from March 26 until April 14 in Bangkok.

Karom Phonthaklang, a UDD lawyer, said the prosecution could not yet decide whether to proceed with the case in court because the investigation had not been completed.

Also, some of the UDD leaders charged were not available to show up to hear the decision.

Um, isn't "to show up for trial" a pretty decent reason? Who of those aren't available? What does Karom mean by some not available?

I'm assuming they were acquitted. Then they all run foul of the SoE decree. Recidivists? Out on bail again?

This is fascinating imo.

[Buchholz]

This is fascinating imo.

Admittedly, it is all a confusing scenario. Throw in misreporting and things get jumbled quite easily. At this point, I'm not sure myself now on the who, what, where, and how's of all of this.

As far as I know, the charges against the Red Leaders for Black Songkran 2009 have not been resolved.

Heck, the charges for the Red Leaders July 2007 riots were just filed a couple of months ago, albeit Jatuporn wasn't one of those charged in that now 3 and half year-old case.

.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

Pheu Thai Party MP's Jatuporn and Karun

The two above and one below are the subjects of an impeachment attempt:

Pheu Thai Party MP and Deputy House Speaker Apiwan Wiriyachai

Multi-coloured shirts seek to impeach three Pheu Thai MPs

The multi-coloured shirts, led by Tul Sithisomwong, on Friday filed a motion supported by 20,800 voters seeking to launch the impeachment proceedings against three Pheu Thai MPs linked to the red shirts.

The three MPs targetted for impeachment are Jatuporn Promphan, Karun Hosakul, and Apinan Wiriyachai.

The motion was lodged at the National Anti-Corruption Commission following a signature campaign to back up the demand for the removal of the three MPs from office.

The Nation 2010-10-08

The above case involving the impeachment of three Pheu Thai Party MP's (including the Deputy Speaker of the House) is underway now:

Yellow-shirt Academic Testifies in Case against Red-shirt MPs

A yellow-shirt academic met with the National Anti-Corruption Commission to give testimony on the impeachment case against three Pheu Thai MPs for defaming the Privy Council president on the red-shirt rally stage.

Independent academic and yellow-shirt activist Thepmontri Limpapayom gave his testimony with National Anti-Corruption Commissioner Klanarong Chantick to accompany the submission of 30,000 signatures in 2009 for the impeachment of Pheu Thai MPs Apiwan Viriyachai, Jatuporn Prompan, and Karun Hosakul.

He claimed the three had defamed and verbally attacked Privy Council President General Prem Tinsulanonda during a red-shirt rally at Parliament.

He submitted a VCD of the speeches as evidence.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission will next have to send the case over to the Senate Speaker for further action.

-- Tan Network 2011-03-03

Edited March 3, 2011 by Buchholz