Criminal court accepts Suthep's libel case against DSI chief

[webfact]

Criminal court accepts libel case against DSI chief



BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court today accepted the libel case filed by protest leader Suthep Thuagsuban against the chief of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) involving the construction of police stations nationwide.

Suthep, then the deputy prime minister overseeing the National Police Office, owner of the police station construction project, filed the defamation suit against DSI chief Tarit Pengdit for interview in the pressing accusing him of ordering the police office to combine separate construction contracts into one to construct all police stations. Suthep said such accusation the DSI chief has damaged his reputation.

The court accepted the case and set January 20 as the first date of hearing.

PCC Development and Construction won the bid to construct 396 stations nationwide at 6.6 billion baht during the Abhisit government.

But the firm could not finish construction, thus abandoning work, prompting the police office to sue the firm and suspend its contracts.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/criminal-court-accepts-libel-case-dsi-chief/

-- Thai PBS 2013-12-04

[jaidam]

Is malleable-man still in the country? He has been quieter than a stalking ninja recently.

[Nickymaster]

Is malleable-man still in the country? He has been quieter than a stalking ninja recently.

He always reminds me of those kids who have a big mouth and when the they will hide or run away.

[loonodingle]

Lets hope Suthep turns up at court then. Whilst he is there perhaps they can action the arrest warrants they have against him. Win win in my book.

[Nickymaster]

Lets hope Suthep turns up at court then. Whilst he is there perhaps they can action the arrest warrants they have against him. Win win in my book.

Win win? or would that be 1 win?

[seajae]

maybe all the whistles scared him off, poor little man.......

[mca]

Suthep said such accusation the DSI chief has damaged his reputation

Any comment would be superfluous.

[Orac]

Is this one of those weird, only in Thailand, defamation cases as there is no mention of the allegation being untrue, just that Suthep was made to look bad.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Tokay]

How can someone with an arrest warrant be able to file such charges?

This place is honestly amazing.

[binjalin]

reputation??? you mean they can heighten it from the lowest depths here in Thailand? now that IS Amazing

[pookiki]

I went to a discussion about Thailand's criminal and civil libel laws several weeks ago at the FCCT. I was surprised to learn that Thailand's criminal libel law is patterned after the libel law in the UK. At any rate, when a person in Thailand alleges that another person has libeled or slandered him/her, the person is presumed guilty. To prove that the person charged of the libel/slander is innocent, one must show that the statement(s) were true and ALSO that such statements were made in the public interest. I think most of the ASEAN countries follow the same standard. In the USA, there is no such thing as criminal libel or slander and politicians are fair game for anything because they are public officials. In many cases, allegations of libel, slander, and/or lese majeste are used to investigative news reporting, stifle dissent, or just to get even with people you don't like - like the man who charged his brother with lese majeste. But for the life of me, I cannot understand [but I don't reject the findings of the court],how a person whose job is to enforce the law can be charged with libel or slander for reporting on the findings of an investigation. If is it shown during the trial that the charges are frivolous and/or politically motivated then, and only then, should a person have the right to pursue a libel or slander suit.

Edited December 4, 2013 by pookiki

[tingtongteesood]

Hahaha in Thailand it never matters if something is true or not, all that matters is how much money you have and how much face you have...

[wolf5370]

I went to a discussion about Thailand's criminal and civil libel laws several weeks ago at the FCCT. I was surprised to learn that Thailand's criminal libel law is patterned after the libel law in the UK. At any rate, when a person in Thailand alleges that another person has libeled or slandered him/her, the person is presumed guilty. To prove that the person charged of the libel/slander is innocent, one must show that the statement(s) were true and ALSO that such statements were made in the public interest. I think most of the ASEAN countries follow the same standard. In the USA, there is no such thing as criminal libel or slander and politicians are fair game for anything because they are public officials. In many cases, allegations of libel, slander, and/or lese majeste are used to investigative news reporting, stifle dissent, or just to get even with people you don't like - like the man who charged his brother with lese majeste. But for the life of me, I cannot understand [but I don't reject the findings of the court],how a person whose job is to enforce the law can be charged with libel or slander for reporting on the findings of an investigation. If is it shown during the trial that the charges are frivolous and/or politically motivated then, and only then, should a person have the right to pursue a libel or slander suit.

Slander requires damage, so usually has to be public. For example, if I printed in the news paper that you dress as a women on the weekends, and it cost you your job/a contract/marriage/friendships/whatever - then you will be able to lodge a libel complaint against me - the onus is on me to prove what I said is true (photos or whatever). This makes perfect sense as if the onus was reversed, it may be impossible to disprove something that is not true. How do you prove that you have never worn women's clothing on any weekend in your life?

However, if the police issue an arrest warrant it is supposed to be private (that is why the court went ape with the police with respect to Suthep's arrest warrant being published). It is also an accusation with the presumption of guilt, not a statement of the fact of it. Therefore, the arrested person can sue for wrongful arrest, but not liable without something else happening (incidentally, Suthep can possibly do just that thanks to the stupidity of the police leafleting Bangkok and the press with copies of the warrant which make the accusation!). Press are usually very careful to say, "such and such as been arrested for..." or "such and such is alleged to have...", not stating that the person actually did it.

BTW many of Thailand's laws are based on the British system - I presume it made most sense it being another constitutional monarchy with a very long legal history and framework - it is also one of the most popular system worldwide (French common law is another) - especially in Asia.

[wolf5370]

Hahaha in Thailand it never matters if something is true or not, all that matters is how much money you have and how much face you have...

No it is about how much damage it causes you, and if it has been formally proven. People here are all too free with accusations - and this is the consequence. If they believe the truth of their statements, then they should have the conviction to swear out a charge or complaint, not to publicize it as fact.

[EricBerg]

comedy capers

[wolf5370]

How can someone with an arrest warrant be able to file such charges?

This place is honestly amazing.

So, by your logic. I could swear out a bogus complaint on you that leads you to be arrested pending trial. Then I can happily say whatever I like about you in the press, regardless of your guilt in the original complaint or the validity in what I say about you.

See the problem? In any fair legal system, there must be a presumption of innocence. There also must exist an ability to defend one's self. That means before something is proven in court, then it can not be stated as a fact in public. It also means that regardless of guilt, of presumption thereof, a person still has rights and is allowed the protection of the law/state against criminal acts brought against them (including liable). Even guilty and incarcerated, an individual has such rights - it is only those rights limited by law with respect to his sentence (and statute) that is exempted.

[lemoncake]

How can someone with an arrest warrant be able to file such charges?

This place is honestly amazing.

Same way as someone who is convicted and on the run can get a new passport

[Thaddeus]

How can someone with an arrest warrant be able to file such charges?

This place is honestly amazing.

Well someone who should be serving jail time not only right now but also a long time ago appears to be able to get away with it.

Via proxy of course.

[Thaddeus]

Where is Tarit btw .... has he taken his Iago act on tour?

[lemoncake]

Where is Tarit btw .... has he taken his Iago act on tour?

working undecover in Phuket to catch illegal taxi mafia

[Thaddeus]

Where is Tarit btw .... has he taken his Iago act on tour?

working undecover in Phuket to catch illegal taxi mafia

Just a normal day then, one lost cause after another.

[MAJIC]

How can someone with an arrest warrant be able to file such charges?

This place is honestly amazing.

The same way a man from Dubai can file for defamation,while out of the Country, and did so a few weeks ago!

[pookiki]

I went to a discussion about Thailand's criminal and civil libel laws several weeks ago at the FCCT. I was surprised to learn that Thailand's criminal libel law is patterned after the libel law in the UK. At any rate, when a person in Thailand alleges that another person has libeled or slandered him/her, the person is presumed guilty. To prove that the person charged of the libel/slander is innocent, one must show that the statement(s) were true and ALSO that such statements were made in the public interest. I think most of the ASEAN countries follow the same standard. In the USA, there is no such thing as criminal libel or slander and politicians are fair game for anything because they are public officials. In many cases, allegations of libel, slander, and/or lese majeste are used to investigative news reporting, stifle dissent, or just to get even with people you don't like - like the man who charged his brother with lese majeste. But for the life of me, I cannot understand [but I don't reject the findings of the court],how a person whose job is to enforce the law can be charged with libel or slander for reporting on the findings of an investigation. If is it shown during the trial that the charges are frivolous and/or politically motivated then, and only then, should a person have the right to pursue a libel or slander suit.

Slander requires damage, so usually has to be public. For example, if I printed in the news paper that you dress as a women on the weekends, and it cost you your job/a contract/marriage/friendships/whatever - then you will be able to lodge a libel complaint against me - the onus is on me to prove what I said is true (photos or whatever). This makes perfect sense as if the onus was reversed, it may be impossible to disprove something that is not true. How do you prove that you have never worn women's clothing on any weekend in your life?

However, if the police issue an arrest warrant it is supposed to be private (that is why the court went ape with the police with respect to Suthep's arrest warrant being published). It is also an accusation with the presumption of guilt, not a statement of the fact of it. Therefore, the arrested person can sue for wrongful arrest, but not liable without something else happening (incidentally, Suthep can possibly do just that thanks to the stupidity of the police leafleting Bangkok and the press with copies of the warrant which make the accusation!). Press are usually very careful to say, "such and such as been arrested for..." or "such and such is alleged to have...", not stating that the person actually did it.

BTW many of Thailand's laws are based on the British system - I presume it made most sense it being another constitutional monarchy with a very long legal history and framework - it is also one of the most popular system worldwide (French common law is another) - especially in Asia.

Your explanation here does not agree with the legal explanation made by a lawyer at the FCCT. There were also three panelists who explained there experience with Thailand's criminal and civil libel laws. Again,their experience does not jive with your explanation here. Not sure what your credentials are to discuss this matter.

[wolf5370]

I went to a discussion about Thailand's criminal and civil libel laws several weeks ago at the FCCT. I was surprised to learn that Thailand's criminal libel law is patterned after the libel law in the UK. At any rate, when a person in Thailand alleges that another person has libeled or slandered him/her, the person is presumed guilty. To prove that the person charged of the libel/slander is innocent, one must show that the statement(s) were true and ALSO that such statements were made in the public interest. I think most of the ASEAN countries follow the same standard. In the USA, there is no such thing as criminal libel or slander and politicians are fair game for anything because they are public officials. In many cases, allegations of libel, slander, and/or lese majeste are used to investigative news reporting, stifle dissent, or just to get even with people you don't like - like the man who charged his brother with lese majeste. But for the life of me, I cannot understand [but I don't reject the findings of the court],how a person whose job is to enforce the law can be charged with libel or slander for reporting on the findings of an investigation. If is it shown during the trial that the charges are frivolous and/or politically motivated then, and only then, should a person have the right to pursue a libel or slander suit.

Slander requires damage, so usually has to be public. For example, if I printed in the news paper that you dress as a women on the weekends, and it cost you your job/a contract/marriage/friendships/whatever - then you will be able to lodge a libel complaint against me - the onus is on me to prove what I said is true (photos or whatever). This makes perfect sense as if the onus was reversed, it may be impossible to disprove something that is not true. How do you prove that you have never worn women's clothing on any weekend in your life?

However, if the police issue an arrest warrant it is supposed to be private (that is why the court went ape with the police with respect to Suthep's arrest warrant being published). It is also an accusation with the presumption of guilt, not a statement of the fact of it. Therefore, the arrested person can sue for wrongful arrest, but not liable without something else happening (incidentally, Suthep can possibly do just that thanks to the stupidity of the police leafleting Bangkok and the press with copies of the warrant which make the accusation!). Press are usually very careful to say, "such and such as been arrested for..." or "such and such is alleged to have...", not stating that the person actually did it.

BTW many of Thailand's laws are based on the British system - I presume it made most sense it being another constitutional monarchy with a very long legal history and framework - it is also one of the most popular system worldwide (French common law is another) - especially in Asia.

Your explanation here does not agree with the legal explanation made by a lawyer at the FCCT. There were also three panelists who explained there experience with Thailand's criminal and civil libel laws. Again,their experience does not jive with your explanation here. Not sure what your credentials are to discuss this matter.

If you believe that to be the case why are you not supplying the contentions? No argument, just a carte blanche, "you are wrong". Site where I am wrong, in the legal code and I'll debate with you - otherwise you are nought but hot air.

[steveromagnino]

Relevant criminal code is under Chapter 3 Sections 326 up to 333 of the Thai Criminal Code. There are two kinds of defamation:

1) Simple defamation (Section 326) Whoever imputes anything, to the other person before a third person, in a manner likely to impair the reputation of such other person or to expose such other person to be hated or scorned.

2) Libel (Section 328) If the offense of defamation is committed by means of document publication, drawing, painting, cinematography, film, picture or letters made visible by any means, or any other recording instruments, recording picture or letters, or by broadcasting or spreading picture, or by propagation by any other means.

Civil defamation is defined under the Thai Civil and Commercial Code as follows:

Section 423. A person who, contrary to the truth, asserts or circulates as a fact that which injurious to the reputation or the credit of another or his earnings or prosperity in any other manner, shall compensate the other for any damage arising therefrom, even if he does not know of its untruth, provided he ought to know it.

Also related are the lese majeste and computer crimes legislation.

Regarding USA the rights to freedom of speech are indeed still curtailed by some of the similar restraints to England, so no, it is not entirely accurate to say you can 'say whatever you want about American politicians' the test is something along the lines of patently false and known to be patently false except when patently ridiculous. ref. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan; Hustler Magazine v. Falwell et al.

The test in British law is as Wolf explains, the phrase is presumed to be false until shown to be true placing the onus on the defendent; however damages must pass the test of malice or negligence. So you do get the crazy McLibel type cases (McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris) where the defendents had to defend themselves against the might of McDonalds....and interestingly in the end McDonalds lost, depending how you look at it.

The process is usually to try to pursue criminal AND civil if possible, otherwise, only civil since the threshold is lower for civil and you can pay laywers to do it rather than relying on the criminal justice system. Also civil is the only way to get paid and enforce a big incentive to shut the person up.

The usual mechanic in Thailand is to use the cost and time of the court process itself as the threat; as was the case when Thaksin got Shin Corp to sue Supinya Klangnarong in 2003 for 500m baht; then again 10 billion baht civil case against the Thai-language newspaper Matichon; then again 500 million baht civil suit against Sondhi Limthongkul, journalist Sarocha Pornudomsak, and Thai Day Dot Com PCL; then again (insert all the other cases here). Each one ties up loads of time and you just outspend the other party until they shut up, apologise or you just make them 'go missing'*.

In the first case, Shin felt wronged that Supinya had stated she noted a spike in Shins profits coinciding with Thaksins rise to power, based on research and data compiled from several public discourses concerning questions of conflict of interest in the Thaksin administration, research by other well-respected academics on state telecommunication concessions and interwined political and economic interests, and from Shins own website and reports - even though in fact you would struggle to find any evidence of suffering.

http://cpj.org/2005/10/in-thailand-media-activist-testifies-about-climate.php

* I doubt that any activist or lawyer has ever gone missing relating to something they said relating to government policy of that time, and in saying this, I am merely offering a personal hypothetical opinion of a way a hypothetical government might choose to solve a problematic lawyer or activist who could not be silenced in another fashion.

Edited December 6, 2013 by steveromagnino

[pookiki]

Relevant criminal code is under Chapter 3 Sections 326 up to 333 of the Thai Criminal Code. There are two kinds of defamation:

1) Simple defamation (Section 326) Whoever imputes anything, to the other person before a third person, in a manner likely to impair the reputation of such other person or to expose such other person to be hated or scorned.

2) Libel (Section 328) If the offense of defamation is committed by means of document publication, drawing, painting, cinematography, film, picture or letters made visible by any means, or any other recording instruments, recording picture or letters, or by broadcasting or spreading picture, or by propagation by any other means.

Civil defamation is defined under the Thai Civil and Commercial Code as follows:

Section 423. A person who, contrary to the truth, asserts or circulates as a fact that which injurious to the reputation or the credit of another or his earnings or prosperity in any other manner, shall compensate the other for any damage arising therefrom, even if he does not know of its untruth, provided he ought to know it.

Also related are the lese majeste and computer crimes legislation.

Regarding USA the rights to freedom of speech are indeed still curtailed by some of the similar restraints to England, so no, it is not entirely accurate to say you can 'say whatever you want about American politicians' the test is something along the lines of patently false and known to be patently false except when patently ridiculous. ref. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan; Hustler Magazine v. Falwell et al.

The test in British law is as Wolf explains, the phrase is presumed to be false until shown to be true placing the onus on the defendent; however damages must pass the test of malice or negligence. So you do get the crazy McLibel type cases (McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris) where the defendents had to defend themselves against the might of McDonalds....and interestingly in the end McDonalds lost, depending how you look at it.

The process is usually to try to pursue criminal AND civil if possible, otherwise, only civil since the threshold is lower for civil and you can pay laywers to do it rather than relying on the criminal justice system. Also civil is the only way to get paid and enforce a big incentive to shut the person up.

The usual mechanic in Thailand is to use the cost and time of the court process itself as the threat; as was the case when Thaksin got Shin Corp to sue Supinya Klangnarong in 2003 for 500m baht; then again 10 billion baht civil case against the Thai-language newspaper Matichon; then again 500 million baht civil suit against Sondhi Limthongkul, journalist Sarocha Pornudomsak, and Thai Day Dot Com PCL; then again (insert all the other cases here). Each one ties up loads of time and you just outspend the other party until they shut up, apologise or you just make them 'go missing'*.

In the first case, Shin felt wronged that Supinya had stated she noted a spike in Shins profits coinciding with Thaksins rise to power, based on research and data compiled from several public discourses concerning questions of conflict of interest in the Thaksin administration, research by other well-respected academics on state telecommunication concessions and interwined political and economic interests, and from Shins own website and reports - even though in fact you would struggle to find any evidence of suffering.

http://cpj.org/2005/10/in-thailand-media-activist-testifies-about-climate.php

* I doubt that any activist or lawyer has ever gone missing relating to something they said relating to government policy of that time, and in saying this, I am merely offering a personal hypothetical opinion of a way a hypothetical government might choose to solve a problematic lawyer or activist who could not be silenced in another fashion.

As noted in Thailand's criminal libel/slandeer code, the showing of 'damage' is 'negligible' and that is the point that was stressed at the FCCT. Once a decision is made to prosecute under the criminal libel provisions, there is a conviction rate of 99%. As for the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case, it creates such a high burden of proof on the plaintiff, it is 'nearly' impossible to meet. And there are no criminal libel/slander statutes in the US. It is a civil procedure that seeks compensation for tangible damages. Thank you for your input.

Edited December 6, 2013 by pookiki

[whybother]

Suthep said such accusation the DSI chief has damaged his reputation

Any comment would be superfluous.

Is Suthep accusing Tarit of saying good things about him?

[whybother]

Lets hope Suthep turns up at court then. Whilst he is there perhaps they can action the arrest warrants they have against him. Win win in my book.

How can someone with an arrest warrant be able to file such charges?

This place is honestly amazing.

A shown by a person who resides in Dubai, you don't need to be in court yourself, and you can have an arrest warrant and still file a case.

Edited December 7, 2013 by whybother

[BlackJack]

does anyone know where i can find the Thai Law regarding frivolous actions

[Robby nz]

How can someone with an arrest warrant be able to file such charges?

This place is honestly amazing.

Thaksin can and he isn't even in the country so why not Suthep?