webfact Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 DEFAMATION SUIT Thaksin wins appellate review to sue Kaewsun The Nation Kaewsun BANGKOK: -- Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has won an appellate review and will get his day in court suing a former graft buster Kaewsun Atibodhi for libel. The Appeals Court on Wednesday ruled to overturn a lower court's dismissal verdict and to order the start of libel trail involving Kaewsun. Thaksin instructed his legal team to launch the court battle in 2007 after Kaewsan, then member of the Asset Examination Committee, had given an interview aired by Channel 5 outlining graft violations linked to the former prime minister. As plaintiff, Thaksin contends Kaewsun to have defamed him and abused the anti-graft law to tarnish his reputation. The Criminal Court found the case to lack the merit for a judicial review, ruling out trial. The appellate decision said the plaintiff brought up valid legal arguments on libel despite the lack of grounds to suspect Kaewsan's abuse of the antigraft law. The high court then instructed for trial to commence focusing on libel and dismissed charges of abusive citing of antigraft provisions. -- The Nation 2012-06-13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I'm guessing that Thaksin won't get his day in court for a while yet. He needs to be the country for that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post h90 Posted June 13, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted June 13, 2012 A criminal on the run from his jail terms for corruption is sueing an anti-corruption investigator..... Very sick.... 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 If a case is dismissed it is dismissed. Not generally up for apellate rewiew. One can re-file the case of course but that doesn't seem to be the case here. What a silly system of court and verdict shopping. Not an avenue open to the poor I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baloo22 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I wonder! Does Thai law allow the defendant the right to conduct an in-person deposition of the plaintiff? Can the defendant demand that the plaintiff appear in court for testimony and cross-examination? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 If a case is dismissed it is dismissed. Not generally up for apellate rewiew. One can re-file the case of course but that doesn't seem to be the case here. What a silly system of court and verdict shopping. Not an avenue open to the poor I suppose. No poor go in jail express. We had one staff with yabah.....express court sentence.....4 years. If he would have stolen 1 billion he would be still appealing and sueing the policeman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) I wonder! Does Thai law allow the defendant the right to conduct an in-person deposition of the plaintiff? Can the defendant demand that the plaintiff appear in court for testimony and cross-examination? I just had a hopeful thought, then it went away again. //edit/it doubled quoted all by itself Edited June 13, 2012 by Thaddeus 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I wonder! Does Thai law allow the defendant the right to conduct an in-person deposition of the plaintiff? Can the defendant demand that the plaintiff appear in court for testimony and cross-examination? libel laws are very strange in Thailand. they are less libel laws than a tool for the rich and powerful to shut the mouth of every critic. Thaksin opened something like 500 lawsuits against Sondhi, for example. Most in Chang Mai and other provinces. Which is ridiculous..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Thai at Heart Posted June 13, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted June 13, 2012 The Thai courts/legal system are covering themselves in glory this last few weeks aren't they. What a system. A man accused and convicted of an offence directly related to the type of issues in this case, is able to sue one of his accusers for damaging his reputation. Someone, please go and read the defamation law from a grown up country, translate it into Thai and put it into effect, please. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbamboo Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 This could be very costly for the anti corruption fighter. Remember the journalist who merely suggested that Thaksin had unduly benefitted financially from his time as PM and she was sued for one billion baht. Fortunately for her fellow journalists from around the world outraged at this kind of intimidation put pressure to bear and the case was dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post MunterHunter Posted June 13, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted June 13, 2012 I would have hoped the Courts turned around and said - "Sure, we will allow this case into Court, but you need to be there in person to enact this" - then what Thaksin drop the case quicker than a hot brick. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 The Thai courts/legal system are covering themselves in glory this last few weeks aren't they. What a system. A man accused and convicted of an offence directly related to the type of issues in this case, is able to sue one of his accusers for damaging his reputation. Someone, please go and read the defamation law from a grown up country, translate it into Thai and put it into effect, please. the complete constitution blabla is ridiculous. Not needed to write new constitution.....there are enough gooc constitutions worldwide which only need to be translated and a bit adjusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudolus Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Just out of interest, can the defence get the court to subpoena Thaksin to appear in the trial and therefore if he refuses to he is in contempt of court thus arrested on entry, or arrested on entry if he does turn up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MunterHunter Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Just out of interest, can the defence get the court to subpoena Thaksin to appear in the trial and therefore if he refuses to he is in contempt of court thus arrested on entry, or arrested on entry if he does turn up? Or simply the case gets thrown out as the accuser isn't there in person to present the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickymaster Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 The Thai courts/legal system are covering themselves in glory this last few weeks aren't they. What a system. A man accused and convicted of an offence directly related to the type of issues in this case, is able to sue one of his accusers for damaging his reputation. Someone, please go and read the defamation law from a grown up country, translate it into Thai and put it into effect, please. You think if PT would not have been the government, Takkie would have had any success? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Misterwhisper Posted June 13, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted June 13, 2012 Reading this, quite a few things spring up in my mind: 1) There is a guy who has the galls to employ a justice system that on several occasions he has described as unfair and biased; well, now that it serve his purposes this very justice system seems to be good enough, doesn't it? 2) Isn't it a tad ironic (if not to say, tasteless) that a person on the run from a corruption conviction sues the former representative of an anti-corruption body from his self-chosen refuge abroad? 3) "As plaintiff, Thaksin contends Kaewsun to have defamed him and abused the anti-graft law to tarnish his reputation." - What reputation? What 'reputation' can a convicted felon on the run possibly have? 4) "Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has won an appellate review and will get his day in court..." How is he supposed to 'get his day in court' as for obvious reasons he is not going to come to Thailand for that? Video phone-in? Some assigned lackey representing him? Is it not customary in Thai courts that the plaintiff has to be physically present at least during some of the sessions for testimony and cross examination? If not, does everybody acting as plaintiff have the right NOT to attend court? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MunterHunter Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 More importantly, the question should be raised, why are the courts even entertaining the case when its been tabled by a convicted felon on the run? Just sayin... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Reading this, quite a few things spring up in my mind: 1) There is a guy who has the galls to employ a justice system that on several occasions he has described as unfair and biased; well, now that it serve his purposes this very justice system seems to be good enough, doesn't it? 2) Isn't it a tad ironic (if not to say, tasteless) that a person on the run from a corruption conviction sues the former representative of an anti-corruption body from his self-chosen refuge abroad? 3) "As plaintiff, Thaksin contends Kaewsun to have defamed him and abused the anti-graft law to tarnish his reputation." - What reputation? What 'reputation' can a convicted felon on the run possibly have? 4) "Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has won an appellate review and will get his day in court..." How is he supposed to 'get his day in court' as for obvious reasons he is not going to come to Thailand for that? Video phone-in? Some assigned lackey representing him? Is it not customary in Thai courts that the plaintiff has to be physically present at least during some of the sessions for testimony and cross examination? If not, does everybody acting as plaintiff have the right NOT to attend court? and it wouldn't surprise me if Thaksin sues him for corruption cases in which he isn't convicted, because the case can't process. And as long he is not convicted he is considered as innocent.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unkomoncents Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Further proof of just how far Thailand's head is stuck up its a#s. How can you possibly minimize corruption when merely talking about specific instances of it brings down the full weight of the Kingdom's draconian anti-defamation laws? It's amazing that a supposed criminal, "fugitive" ex-prime minister can so effectively harness the legal system to his advantage from abroad. Truly amazing (terrifying, in honest, and therefore non-Thai, terms). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Reading this, quite a few things spring up in my mind: 1) There is a guy who has the galls to employ a justice system that on several occasions he has described as unfair and biased; well, now that it serve his purposes this very justice system seems to be good enough, doesn't it? 2) Isn't it a tad ironic (if not to say, tasteless) that a person on the run from a corruption conviction sues the former representative of an anti-corruption body from his self-chosen refuge abroad? 3) "As plaintiff, Thaksin contends Kaewsun to have defamed him and abused the anti-graft law to tarnish his reputation." - What reputation? What 'reputation' can a convicted felon on the run possibly have? 4) "Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has won an appellate review and will get his day in court..." How is he supposed to 'get his day in court' as for obvious reasons he is not going to come to Thailand for that? Video phone-in? Some assigned lackey representing him? Is it not customary in Thai courts that the plaintiff has to be physically present at least during some of the sessions for testimony and cross examination? If not, does everybody acting as plaintiff have the right NOT to attend court? All good points, and not to mention, the court case has already been dismissed and like Phoenix has risen. Hey'd ya see in the other paper where the Constitutional Court accepted a case to disband the Dem's today? A laff a minute here.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MunterHunter Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I still think that someone who is "on the run" to escape a jail sentence should lose his right to take someone to court in that country. Fleeing the country to avoid a jail sentence is showing you have no respect for the courts, but then to turn around and file a case such as this... well, you either respect the court or you do not, shouldn't be able to have it both ways IMHO 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 So this must be a civil suit, or double jeopardy would apply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiChai Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Legal system favourable the rich. If you don't have the money to fight a case you loose it. TiT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siripon Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 It has been said that of his many enemies,Thaksin hates Kaeowsan the most. The reason being that as a member of the AEC examining Thaksin's cases, he knows in detail the transactions and money trails weaved by Thaksin, and most importantly, he is able to clearly explain and articulate these to the public. And in defamation cases in Thailand the plaintiff can be absent, as Thaksin is, whilst the case proceeds, handed by one of his lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 If the case succeeds, I strongly recommend an award of 25 satang for damage to k. Thaksin's reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saltandpepper Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 If the case succeeds, I strongly recommend an award of 25 satang for damage to k. Thaksin's reputation. 25 satang? Why so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crushdepth Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 Somehow it seems wrong that criminal fugitives can sue people while on the run. How about K. Thaksin turns up to serve his own sentence first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
looping Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 More importantly, the question should be raised, why are the courts even entertaining the case when its been tabled by a convicted felon on the run? Just sayin... Great point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhootThaiMaiDai Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 What, no one sees the irony in letting Toxin sue for libel while he's finally been indicted for probably (one of) the same crime(s)... Hopefully the courts got his court costs first, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gemini81 Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 What, no one sees the irony in letting Toxin sue for libel while he's finally been indicted for probably (one of) the same crime(s)... Hopefully the courts got his court costs first, huh? Actually, they probably did receive some benefits, and maybe that's the only reason it's being given the time of day, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now