Court Acquits Redshirts Accused Of Torching Shopping Mall
By Khaosod English

BANGKOK — Two Redshirt demonstrators accused of burning down a shopping mall in Bangkok during the 2010 unrest were acquitted by a Court of Appeals this morning.

Saichol Paebua and Pinij Channarong were charged with arson and violation of an Emergency Decree for allegedly torching the Central World shopping mall on 19 May, the final day of the mass Redshirt protests in Bangkok in 2010.

A Court of Appeals acquitted the pair of the arson charges this morning, affirming the previous court verdict.

"None of the witnesses presented by the prosecutor actually saw the defendants at the scene when the arson took place," Winyat Chartmontri, the lawyer who represented Mr. Saichol and Mr. Pinij, said after the ruling. "The prosecution witnesses' testimony was not sufficient."

However, Mr. Saichol and Mr. Pinij were found guilty of violating the Emergency Decree, which banned public protests in the capital city, for participating in the demonstration near Central World.

The pair was sentenced to nine months in prison, but the court ruled that they are longer required to serve the sentence as they have already spent time in prison awaiting trial.

Mr. Saichol and Mr. Pinij, who were 26 and 28 on the day of the incident, were imprisoned between May 2010 and March 2013, when a lower court found them not guilty. Despite a lack of new evidence or testimonies, the prosecutor filed an appeal three months after the defendants walked free.

"I am so happy that the charges against me are dropped,” Mr. Pinij said tearfully as he exited the court this morning. “I would like to thank the court for giving me mercy and justice.”

The Office of Attorney General has the right to contest today's verdict, but the prosecutor must secure consent from a judge in the Court of Appeals to proceed with the appeal, said Mr. Winyat, the pair’s lawyer.

The court also dismissed arson charges against two other defendants who were accused of torching the shopping mall alongside Mr. Saichol and Mr. Pinij.

Central World and dozens of other buildings were targeted by rioters on 19 May 2010 as the military moved in and cracked down on the anti-government Redshirt protesters who had been occupying the financial district of Bangkok for several months.

For many Bangkokians, the arson attack on Central World, one of the largest shopping malls in Bangkok, became a defining moment of the political unrest that had gripped the capital city for months.

Critics of the Redshirt movement, such as the Yellowshirts and the Democrat Party, have frequently accused Redshirt leaders of engineering the arson attack and used the incident to paint Redshirt protesters as "terrorists."

More than 90 people, mostly civilians, were killed in clashes between demonstrators and security forces in 2010.

Source: http://en.khaosod.co.th/detail.php?newsid=1409812341


-- Khaosod English 2014-09-04

"None of the witnesses presented by the prosecutor actually saw the defendants at the scene when the arson took place,"

Same same in rape case. No 4 witnesses means it did not happen.

Did Thaksin/Yingluck rob Thailand? No too.

Wow, another biased (against Thaksin) Court decision . . . the pro-Thaksin supporters must be up in arms! Oh, wait . . .

Spontaneous Combustion ?

Wow, another biased (against Thaksin) Court decision . . . the pro-Thaksin supporters must be up in arms! Oh, wait . . .

you might have missed the part about the defendants spending nearly 3 years in prison and having their acquittal appealed by the prosecution.

the system is rigged.

what I will never understand in Thailand is how the prosecution can appeal an acquittal. that has to be the most backwards idea in any court system.

what I will never understand in Thailand is how the prosecution can appeal an acquittal. that has to be the most backwards idea in any court system.

It does exist elsewhere under certain circumstances.

what I will never understand in Thailand is how the prosecution can appeal an acquittal. that has to be the most backwards idea in any court system.

It does exist elsewhere under certain circumstances.

that's really messed up.

btw, just curious, but where else does that happen.

In the US, if there is a mis-trial, then you can stand trial 2 times, but (1) that is usually a mistrial to the advantage of the defendant and (2) a mistrial is not an acquittal. Otherwise I can't think of any example.

Edited September 4, 201411 yr by tbthailand

Excellent verdict!

The whole world knows that the torching of Bangkok shopping malls was carried out by yellow shirt thugs and made to look like it was done by the elderly peaceful protesters demonstrating for democracy! Maybe there is hope for equal justice yet

Wow, another biased (against Thaksin) Court decision . . . the pro-Thaksin supporters must be up in arms! Oh, wait . . .

you might have missed the part about the defendants spending nearly 3 years in prison and having their acquittal appealed by the prosecution.

Three years in prison and a prosecutor determined to appeal the case based on nothing, not even witnesses.

Mr. Saichol and Mr. Pini... were imprisoned between May 2010 and March 2013, when a lower court found them not guilty

Almost three years locked up.

If 'none of the witnesses saw the defendants at the scene', then I wonder on what grounds they were in jail for nearly three years...

what I will never understand in Thailand is how the prosecution can appeal an acquittal. that has to be the most backwards idea in any court system.

It does exist elsewhere under certain circumstances.

that's really messed up.

btw, just curious, but where else does that happen.

In the US, if there is a mis-trial, then you can stand trial 2 times, but (1) that is usually a mistrial to the advantage of the defendant and (2) a mistrial is not an acquittal. Otherwise I can't think of any example.

Just a minor example but i was part of an appeal against a magistrate in Hong Kong who refused to convict a shoplifter despite her Guilty plea. He regarded it as so minor that he would not have her future compromised by a conviction. He was ruled wrong and had to convict.

Excellent verdict! The whole world knows that the torching of Bangkok shopping malls was carried out by yellow shirt thugs and made to look like it was done by the elderly peaceful protesters demonstrating for democracy! Maybe there is hope for equal justice yet

You must be living in another world then the rest of us.

Jatuporn - if everybody brings half a litre of gasoline we will leave Bkk in flames.

then he become a govt mnister

• January 27, Natthawut Saikua, a red leader, spoke to the red crowd at Khao Soi Dao, Chanthaburi. He said: "If they seize power, we'll start fires throughout the whole country. Burn them all, my fellow friends and brothers. I will assume the sole responsibility. If they want to find fault with someone, come and get me. If you seize power, just burn it."
• January 29, Arisman Pongruengrong, another hardcore red leader, told a red rally: "We'll have an appointment next time. If they are going to crack down on us, we don't need to prepare anything much. Just bring along your cups or bottles, which you can fill up with at least one litre of gasoline. If one million of us come to Bangkok, we'll have one million litres of gasoline. I can assure you that Bangkok will turn into a sea of fire."

Or maybe it was Jeff Savage that did it?

Unless of course it is a DEM conspiracy and they planted this red shirt fanatic in with the terrorists?

Red shirt terrorist fanatics = muppets.

​I pity Boxclever the most for the post he made. I suspect he thinks the water rose to engulf the Titanic too.

Of course I will not throw sh@t at the courts or burn effigies of the judges because I don't agree with the decision. I will accept it and move on. That is what democratic people do you know….

Spontaneous Combustion ?

With a lot of video on YT where you saw reds mob torch Central, I'm not certain for the Spontaneous Combustion

Wow, another biased (against Thaksin) Court decision . . . the pro-Thaksin supporters must be up in arms! Oh, wait . . .

you might have missed the part about the defendants spending nearly 3 years in prison and having their acquittal appealed by the prosecution.

the system is rigged.

Thanks, but I didn't miss anything . . . however I fear you've missed the humor in what I posted . . . mai pen lai . . . if the Courts WERE biased against Thaksin supporters (as has been complained about here long and loud), they wouldn't have been acquitted at all . . .

wow.. 3 years in prison for not committing a crime?

Well, well... where did I put my lighter?

and so on!

All over Thailand monkeys live in cages all their life for doing nothing, so in this case they should be happy they were only caged for 3 years.

The insurance underwriters have a pretty good idea who did it, but we can't say. Other than to say that the owners are pretty pleased with their refurbished shopping mall courtesy of the insurance companies. However, if the guilty verdict had been upheld then the insurance companies would not have had to pay out as the fire would then be deemed to be due to riot for which cover is excluded. We do not think the fire was started by the rioters and the rioters also did not turn off the fire hydrants outside not long before the fire started.

"None of the witnesses presented by the prosecutor actually saw the defendants at the scene when the arson took place,"

Same same in rape case. No 4 witnesses means it did not happen.

Did Thaksin/Yingluck rob Thailand? No too.

A better analogy: The rapist is identified by the victim as a man with a knob. The authorities proceed to arrest the first person they find who meets the description. Three years later, after the moral panic has died down, a court decides a higher level of certainty is required for conviction.

....which was it...justice.or mercy......???

...wasn't the place that was burned down....humongous.....???

...for some reason....not important......???

...puzzling....

This verdict didn't say that red shirts didn't burn down Central World. It just said that there wasn't enough evidence to convict these two of doing it.

The insurance underwriters have a pretty good idea who did it, but we can't say. Other than to say that the owners are pretty pleased with their refurbished shopping mall courtesy of the insurance companies. However, if the guilty verdict had been upheld then the insurance companies would not have had to pay out as the fire would then be deemed to be due to riot for which cover is excluded. We do not think the fire was started by the rioters and the rioters also did not turn off the fire hydrants outside not long before the fire started.

Right. The insurance companies paid out for the fire knowing it was deliberately lit by the owners ???????????????

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

wow.. 3 years in prison for not committing a crime?

But they were Red Shirts so in the mind of many TV members they had to be guilty

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

wow.. 3 years in prison for not committing a crime?

But they were Red Shirts so in the mind of many TV members they had to be guilty

In the minds of most of members, they still are guilty

Excellent verdict! The whole world knows that the torching of Bangkok shopping malls was carried out by yellow shirt thugs and made to look like it was done by the elderly peaceful protesters demonstrating for democracy! Maybe there is hope for equal justice yet

Well it might be a correct verdict, but yellow shirts? I don't think they would be the next in line for possible suspects.

Maybe I missed something about Central World burning, but it isn't an easy building to torch and not just any to, dick or harry can splash around some gas and throw a match on it. No matter red or yellow shirt color.

The only other shirt color that had the ability and access to the site has already blamed the red shirts.

I'm open to more information. For example, does anyone have a list of arson sites after the military assault and a cross-reference to the owner? That would be interesting to look at.