Thai Court Denies Jatuporn's Temporary Release On Election Day

[Buchholz]

(edit: add: is just banned Purapat Wisetchindawattana, Bhumjaithai candidate in Nakhon Ratchasima's Constituency 8, party-list or constituence?)

Constituency MP candidate. The BJT Party won't be filling that seat.

Interesting that he was banned for filing a false asset declaration asset while previously an MP.

That's the exact same situation facing Thaksin's niece, Pheu Thai Party MP (and now candidate) Chinnicha Wongsawat. She misreported 100 Million Baht in her assets declaration while she was an MP. It was being investigated when Parliament was still in session last.

It would be very interesting if she gets banned as it would set the hallmark of being the most banned family in history with her uncle, her father, and her mother all banned Thaksin party MP's (representing both reincarnations as well as the original Thai Rak Thai).

A truly monumental achievement in Thai political history.

Well done Shinawatras/Wongsawats.

.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Buchholz

[LA Don]

I was unaware that Jatuporn Phrompan was convicted of terrorism. Is he not just being detained on charges? If he is not convicted then he is not legally guilty of the crime, right? If detained and cannot vote than his basic civil rights are infringed upon. Slippery slope. I believe that a court would rule in his favour as he would then have been illegally disenfranchsed. There is a bigger issue at play: The right to vote. If convicted and if the law says convicted prisoners cannot vote, then yes he cannot vote. if not convicted, he has the right to vote. That''s what the law says right? Or, do the people espousing the rule of law only believe the laws that they agree with should be upheld?

I guess speculation doesn't help. It's time to ask a lawyer or start reading the Thai laws yourself. Keep in mind Thai laws may be somewhat different from those in your country of origin.

You don't get to vote in most places in the world if you are in jail. Not a slippery slope at all. A court has already ruled and not in his favor. The law says if you are in jail you cannot vote.

If you were arrested in the US and bound over for trial you would not be allowed out to vote either. I think the same is true in the UK. The other paper reports, if you are in jail you cannot vote.

Disagree - you are able to vote by mail (absentee ballot) from US jails. Convicted felons in prison lose their voting rights until released and off any parole.

[rubl]

(edit: add: is just banned Purapat Wisetchindawattana, Bhumjaithai candidate in Nakhon Ratchasima's Constituency 8, party-list or constituence?)

Constituency MP candidate. The BJT Party won't be filling that seat....

Just to be sure, you mean no second chance for BJT in that constituency ?

[Buchholz]

(edit: add: is just banned Purapat Wisetchindawattana, Bhumjaithai candidate in Nakhon Ratchasima's Constituency 8, party-list or constituence?)

Constituency MP candidate. The BJT Party won't be filling that seat....

Just to be sure, you mean no second chance for BJT in that constituency ?

Yes. They won't be fielding a candidate for that constituency in Sunday's election.

I see now also that Purapat was given 2 months jail time as well. He'll be hearing about his constituency results on radio in prison.

It would be a shame if Chinnicha is not accorded the same treatment for her same charge. Otherwise, the Red Shirts would be screaming,

"Double Standards!!! We demand Thaksin's niece goes to jail!!"

,

Edited June 28, 2011 by Buchholz

[pukka]

The same old old

[Phatcharanan]

I was unaware that Jatuporn Phrompan was convicted of terrorism. Is he not just being detained on charges? If he is not convicted then he is not legally guilty of the crime, right? If detained and cannot vote than his basic civil rights are infringed upon. Slippery slope. I believe that a court would rule in his favour as he would then have been illegally disenfranchsed. There is a bigger issue at play: The right to vote. If convicted and if the law says convicted prisoners cannot vote, then yes he cannot vote. if not convicted, he has the right to vote. That''s what the law says right? Or, do the people espousing the rule of law only believe the laws that they agree with should be upheld?

Thai law applies here.

Get used to it. You ever actually LISTEN to any of his speeches??

The guy is a lunatic.

[pukka]

I was unaware that Jatuporn Phrompan was convicted of terrorism. Is he not just being detained on charges? If he is not convicted then he is not legally guilty of the crime, right? If detained and cannot vote than his basic civil rights are infringed upon. Slippery slope. I believe that a court would rule in his favour as he would then have been illegally disenfranchsed. There is a bigger issue at play: The right to vote. If convicted and if the law says convicted prisoners cannot vote, then yes he cannot vote. if not convicted, he has the right to vote. That''s what the law says right? Or, do the people espousing the rule of law only believe the laws that they agree with should be upheld?

Thai law applies here.

Get used to it. You ever actually LISTEN to any of his speeches??

The guy is a lunatic.

Powerful I would say .The Thais like him

[cdnvic]

Troll posts and replies to them removed. Also one with needless profanity.

[webfact]

Remand threatens Jatuporn's electoral hopes

By The Nation

Pheu Thai candidate Jatuporn Promphan is facing a dilemma - he stands a good chance of winning his party-list seat through the proportionate vote, but may be disqualified because - as he is being held on remand - he may not be allowed to cast his ballot.

The Criminal Court yesterday rejected his latest bail application which sought a one-day release to enable Jatuporn and another remanded suspect, Nisit Sinthuprai, to vote on the July 3 election day.

Although the defence plans to seek appellate review, legal pundits see virtually no chance of overturning the lower court's decision. Jatuporn and Nisit are under remand for a second time for violating the conditions for temporary release.

Jatuporn's lawyer Winyat Chartmontri said his client was a party-list candidate obligated to vote at Polling Station No 28, located on Soi Lat Phrao 96, Bangkok's Wang Thong Lang district.

Winyat said should Jatuporn be deprived of his voting right, it might impact on his candidacy right to contest the elections.

He said he believed his client should be allowed to perform his constitutional duty on balloting since he was an electoral candidate on remand pending trial and not a convicted inmate.

Election Commission member Sodsri Sattayathum cited Article 100 of the Constitution to explain that Jatuporn was banned from voting due to his remand.

The charter provision bars any individuals under court-sanctioned custody to vote, Sodsri said, ruling out the possibility of his casting a ballot regardless of his candidacy.

Since he was barred from voting, the EC would likely refuse to endorse his seat allocated under the proportionate vote, she said, arguing that voting status was one of the crucial factors determining the qualifications for MPs.

Jatuporn cannot vote, therefore he is automatically disqualified from holding a seat in the House of Representatives, she added.

"The Jatuporn case is about being disqualified from the job and not about campaign offences, the red and yellow cards and removal from the electoral process," she said.

She said should the EC decide not to endorse Jatuporn's victory, he could still appeal the decision by petitioning the Supreme Court for a judicial review.

Under Article 26 of the Elections Act, electoral candidacy is forfeited upon the failure to cast a vote without justification.

In case the EC turned down Jatuporn's arguments to justify his absence from voting, he would have to petition the high court to intervene in the matter.

-- The Nation 2011-06-29

[Who, me ?]

Let him face the consequences of his violent speeches and actions last year.

[OzMick]

a point of interest - If Jatuporn is disqualified from becoming an MP, is he removed from the party list so the rest move up, or does PTP actually lose a seat? If the latter, wouldn't it be delicious if PTP failed to gain control because they nominated criminals waiting trial?

Move up I think. The Dem's also had a party-list candidate passing away I think, same procedure.

Now the interesting question would be what if a constituency candidate passes away or is otherwise disqualified?

Correct. The Party-list goes to the next person. In this case it would be Red Shirt Leader Natthawut who would move up to Red Shirt Leader Jatuporn's seat. All remaining Pheu Thai Party-list MP candidates, including other Red Shirt Leaders, would move up one spot.

Constituency MP's disqualified, deceased, etc. calls for a new by-election to replace them.

The remaining question is 'what if BEFORE the elections a constituency CANDIDATE has passed away or is disqualified'. Then what ?

(edit: add: is just banned Purapat Wisetchindawattana, Bhumjaithai candidate in Nakhon Ratchasima's Constituency 8, party-list or constituence?)

Seem to have a memory of this. Candidate was elected though dead (showing an interesting view of quality of candidates) and a re-election called.

[geriatrickid]

I was unaware that Jatuporn Phrompan was convicted of terrorism. Is he not just being detained on charges? If he is not convicted then he is not legally guilty of the crime, right? If detained and cannot vote than his basic civil rights are infringed upon. Slippery slope. I believe that a court would rule in his favour as he would then have been illegally disenfranchsed. There is a bigger issue at play: The right to vote. If convicted and if the law says convicted prisoners cannot vote, then yes he cannot vote. if not convicted, he has the right to vote. That''s what the law says right? Or, do the people espousing the rule of law only believe the laws that they agree with should be upheld?

I guess speculation doesn't help. It's time to ask a lawyer or start reading the Thai laws yourself. Keep in mind Thai laws may be somewhat different from those in your country of origin.

I was not speculating, I have read the relevant governing law, which is why I was asking the question. Nor was I considering the laws in my homeland (which by the way removes the right to vote for some offenders.).

The Thai constitution has 4 categories of people not allowed to vote. The Thai language version of the Constitution is slightly different than the English language version, which is to be expected. The common English language version indicates that one loses the right to vote if one is "detained by a warrant of the Court or by a lawful order". Khun Jatupron Phrompan is not detained on a warrant. He is being held on the basis of "probation violation". Right?

The issue becomes more confusing if one looks at the Thai version. อยู่ในระหว่างต้องคุมขังอยู่โดยหมายของศาล

This is not as broad as the common English language translation. I will defer to those of that are fluent Thai language speakers.

My understanding of the clause was that the exclusion applied to those that had been adjudicated as guilty, i.e. sentenced.

Now, if you are stating that the Thai constitution allows anyone not tried and convicted, but detained, to be stripped of his/her voting right, then please tell me where it states that.

I recognize that a lower court has ruled the detained person has lost the right to vote. However, I do wonder if a higher court specializing in constitutional law will agree. Appreciably, my thinking on this may be too intense for those who just want to string this guy up, but I was hoping that there might be some people around with a few functioning brain cells and that compehend Thai who could offer their views. If I have interpreted this incorrectly, cool. I have misunderstood. Live and learn.

However, an outright dismissal because one cannot appreciate the legal issues involved, is unwarranted. Stripping people of their right to vote because they are of an opposing political position is not a positive sign of a democracy. I do however, understand that people guilty of a criminal offense can and do lose their right to vote.

[MILT]

a point of interest - If Jatuporn is disqualified from becoming an MP, is he removed from the party list so the rest move up, or does PTP actually lose a seat? If the latter, wouldn't it be delicious if PTP failed to gain control because they nominated criminals waiting trial?

It would be wonderfully delicious

[MILT]

Disagree - you are able to vote by mail (absentee ballot) from US jails. Convicted felons in prison lose their voting rights until released and off any parole.

Actually there are some states in the US that ban any convicted felon of voting their rights

Edited June 29, 2011 by MILT

[jdinasia]

I think Jatuporn will have until Jul 10th to notify the EC that he could not vote for real reasons. He has a chance still. (If I read the law right.... here's to hoping I read it wrong!)

Nope --- GK clears it up --- Jatuporn IS detained by a warrant of the court. He has no right to vote.

Edited June 29, 2011 by jdinasia

[OzMick]

I was unaware that Jatuporn Phrompan was convicted of terrorism. Is he not just being detained on charges? If he is not convicted then he is not legally guilty of the crime, right? If detained and cannot vote than his basic civil rights are infringed upon. Slippery slope. I believe that a court would rule in his favour as he would then have been illegally disenfranchsed. There is a bigger issue at play: The right to vote. If convicted and if the law says convicted prisoners cannot vote, then yes he cannot vote. if not convicted, he has the right to vote. That''s what the law says right? Or, do the people espousing the rule of law only believe the laws that they agree with should be upheld?

I guess speculation doesn't help. It's time to ask a lawyer or start reading the Thai laws yourself. Keep in mind Thai laws may be somewhat different from those in your country of origin.

I was not speculating, I have read the relevant governing law, which is why I was asking the question. Nor was I considering the laws in my homeland (which by the way removes the right to vote for some offenders.).

The Thai constitution has 4 categories of people not allowed to vote. The Thai language version of the Constitution is slightly different than the English language version, which is to be expected. The common English language version indicates that one loses the right to vote if one is "detained by a warrant of the Court or by a lawful order". Khun Jatupron Phrompan is not detained on a warrant. He is being held on the basis of "probation violation". Right?

The issue becomes more confusing if one looks at the Thai version. อยู่ในระหว่างต้องคุมขังอยู่โดยหมายของศาล

This is not as broad as the common English language translation. I will defer to those of that are fluent Thai language speakers.

My understanding of the clause was that the exclusion applied to those that had been adjudicated as guilty, i.e. sentenced.

Now, if you are stating that the Thai constitution allows anyone not tried and convicted, but detained, to be stripped of his/her voting right, then please tell me where it states that.

I recognize that a lower court has ruled the detained person has lost the right to vote. However, I do wonder if a higher court specializing in constitutional law will agree. Appreciably, my thinking on this may be too intense for those who just want to string this guy up, but I was hoping that there might be some people around with a few functioning brain cells and that compehend Thai who could offer their views. If I have interpreted this incorrectly, cool. I have misunderstood. Live and learn.

However, an outright dismissal because one cannot appreciate the legal issues involved, is unwarranted. Stripping people of their right to vote because they are of an opposing political position is not a positive sign of a democracy. I do however, understand that people guilty of a criminal offense can and do lose their right to vote.

Not laying claim to any legal expertise, but isn't he detained under a warrant, granted bail/probation, which he then violated? Without the original offence/warrant/detainment, there would be no probation to violate.

Detained by a warrant would include those on remand, refused bail. It seems that Thai law is prepared to exclude these persons rather than go to the expense of satisfying their electoral rights.

Edited June 29, 2011 by OzMick

[newermonkey]

This fat cat is above the law, or so he thought LOL

Thai politics is a joke so who cares what the heck they do, let the prisoners vote let the babies in the school vote, let the animals in the zoo vote. what difference would it make anyway? "none" whoever gets in, is in to feather their own nests as they say thanks you idiots for allowing me to rape you.

Edited June 29, 2011 by newermonkey

[Buchholz]

Clause (4) is also available in this case:

Thailand Constitution

Section 100. A person under any of the following prohibitions on the election day is disfranchised:

(1) being a Buddhist priest, novice, monk or clergy;

(2) being under suspension of the right to vote;

(3) being detained by a warrant of the Court or by a lawful order;

(4) being of unsound mind or of mental infirmity.

[AleG]

Aw man, to be a fly on the wall when Jatuporn's smug smile came crashing to the floor when hearing that he may not get his immunity back!

[webfact]

Court: Jatuporn will remain in jail on election day

BANGKOK (NNT) – The Criminal Court has refused to allow red-shirt core leader Jatuporn Prompan to leave the prison to cast his vote in the 3 July general election, citing his tendency to incite chaos in the society.

Mr Jatuporn’s lawyer Winyat Chartmontri today submitted a petition with the Criminal Court for temporary release of his client, now detained for terrorism, in order for him to take part in the general election on 3 July. However, the Court decided to turn down the request as the prisoner’s guilt was considered severe and there was a high possibility that he would affect public security and orderliness if released.

The Court’s reason was the same as the one previously given upon its rejection of bail bids for Mr Jatuporn and another detained red-shirt leader Nisit Sinthuprai.

As a consequence of Mr Jatuporn’s inability to come out to vote, the Election Commission (EC) might have to disqualify him as the number 8 party-list MP candidate of the Pheu Thai Party in compliance with the electoral law, which stipulates that any person failing to exercise his or her electoral right may be deprived of the right to run for candidacy.

-- NNT 2011-06-29

[LikeHeat]

I keep seeing this talk of immunity. Can someone explain what the immunity is actually for? It was my understanding that an MP could be charged but because of the immunity would not have to go to jail or arrange bail during the trial process. I doubt that it is a blanket immunity allowing them do as they please, although it certainly appears that some think it is.

[geriatrickid]

Clause (4) is also available in this case:

Thailand Constitution

Section 100. A person under any of the following prohibitions on the election day is disfranchised:

(1) being a Buddhist priest, novice, monk or clergy;

(2) being under suspension of the right to vote;

(3) being detained by a warrant of the Court or by a lawful order;

(4) being of unsound mind or of mental infirmity.

And the Thai version indicates อยู่ในระหว่างต้องคุมขังอยู่โดยหมายของศาล If this translates into english as no. 3, then yes, I can understand. However, if the intent is to express a judicial sentence, it is somewhat different. Again, I will defer to those fluent in Thai. JDinAsia seems to agree with the english translation. He is fluent in Thai and I am not. It would be interesting to see what others who comprehend Thai think. I wonder if I should post in the language forum.

[lungmi]

อยู่ในระหว่างต้องคุมขังอยู่โดยหมายของศาล

My Thai-German Translator says " In Gewahrsam des Gerichts durch einen Haftbefehl" conforming to

3. "being detained by a warrant of the Court or by a lawful order"

[webfact]

Red-shirt Leader Not Allowed to Vote

The Criminal Court has refused to grant temporary release for a core red-shirt leader, making him unable to cast his vote in the upcoming General Election.

The Criminal Court yesterday rejected a request from key red-shirt leader and Number 8 party-list candidate of the Pheu Thai Party Jatuporn Phromphan for a temporary release in order to vote in the upcoming election at the voting station at Don Sakae Muslim School in Bangkok's Wangthonglang District.

The request had been filed by Jatuporn's lawyer Winyat Chartmontri.

The red-shirt leader has been held in prison since May on charges of terrorism.

As part of the request, Jatuporn asked for the court's permission for a one-day leave from 8 A.M. to 3 P.M. on July 3 to vote.

Submitted with the request was an interview with Electoral Commissioner Sodsri Sattayatham regarding Jatuporn's MP candidacy.

Winyat claimed that if Jatuporn is unable to vote, it might render him ineligible for MP candidacy in the future.

The lawyer said he will file another petition to the court.

The Criminal Court cited previous rulings that denied a temporary release for the red-shirt leader as a basis for its decision.

In addition, the court deemed Sodsri's interview as opinion and said it cannot be used to justify the petition.

-- Tan Network 2011-06-29

[ballpoint]

As I understand it, by not voting in this election he will also be unable to stand in the next, whenever that will be, as we have seen people ruled ineligible because they failed to vote in the previous election. By the same law, even if Thaksin were to come back, he too would be unable to stand in the next election, unless they try to change the law. We all know what happened the last time an unelected figure tried to change the law so he could be made PM. As its 20th anniversary is coming up next year the timing could be auspicious.

[steveromagnino]

[

And the Thai version indicates อยู่ในระหว่างต้องคุมขังอยู่โดยหมายของศาล If this translates into english as no. 3, then yes, I can understand. However, if the intent is to express a judicial sentence, it is somewhat different. Again, I will defer to those fluent in Thai. JDinAsia seems to agree with the english translation. He is fluent in Thai and I am not. It would be interesting to see what others who comprehend Thai think. I wonder if I should post in the language forum.

โดยหมายของศาล

a court order of the judge, it definitely does not say that it is subject to a final sentencing.

[jdinasia]

Clause (4) is also available in this case:

Thailand Constitution

Section 100. A person under any of the following prohibitions on the election day is disfranchised:

(1) being a Buddhist priest, novice, monk or clergy;

(2) being under suspension of the right to vote;

(3) being detained by a warrant of the Court or by a lawful order;

(4) being of unsound mind or of mental infirmity.

And the Thai version indicates อยู่ในระหว่างต้องคุมขังอยู่โดยหมายของศาล If this translates into english as no. 3, then yes, I can understand. However, if the intent is to express a judicial sentence, it is somewhat different. Again, I will defer to those fluent in Thai. JDinAsia seems to agree with the english translation. He is fluent in Thai and I am not. It would be interesting to see what others who comprehend Thai think. I wonder if I should post in the language forum.

I would not describe myself as "fluent" but in this case both the Thai and the English are clear.

edit..... I am also unclear as to wether he could petition the EC by the 10th to ask for consideration (to have not lost his voting rights due to pre-trial incarceration. I would expect that they will hold to the letter of the law and stick it to him, but this being Thailand ......

Edited June 29, 2011 by jdinasia

[SomTumTiger]

Clause (4) is also available in this case:

Thailand Constitution

Section 100. A person under any of the following prohibitions on the election day is disfranchised:

(1) being a Buddhist priest, novice, monk or clergy;

(2) being under suspension of the right to vote;

(3) being detained by a warrant of the Court or by a lawful order;

(4) being of unsound mind or of mental infirmity.

And the Thai version indicates อยู่ในระหว่างต้องคุมขังอยู่โดยหมายของศาล If this translates into english as no. 3, then yes, I can understand. However, if the intent is to express a judicial sentence, it is somewhat different. Again, I will defer to those fluent in Thai. JDinAsia seems to agree with the english translation. He is fluent in Thai and I am not. It would be interesting to see what others who comprehend Thai think. I wonder if I should post in the language forum.

#4 is probably the stronger argument. That guys is a Certified - Grade A loony bird.

[Asa]

Is the Court crossing its boundary in preventing a man to exercise his right by the constitution? He is not a convicted, but held pending a trail in jail.

[whybother]

Is the Court crossing its boundary in preventing a man to exercise his right by the constitution? He is not a convicted, but held pending a trail in jail.

As pointed out a number of times above, the court is applying the law.

Jatuporn has been incarcerated because of a court order (ie an arrest warrant). The law says that someone who "(3) being detained by a warrant of the Court or by a lawful order;" "is disenfranchised" (ie can not vote).

That's interesting for the currently banned politicians (TRT 111 + others). As I understand it, they are also not allowed to vote, which means they will not be able to stand in the next election either.