Court acquits two former Pheu Thai ministers and one party member of defamation charges

[webfact]

Court acquits two former Pheu Thai ministers and one party member of defamation charges

BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court on Thursday acquitted two former ministers and a member of the Pheu Thai party of defamation charges lodged against them by former finance minister Korn Chatikavanich of the Democrat party.

Charged with defamation were former deputy prime minister Yongyuth Vichaidit, former minister of information and communications technology Anudit Nakornthap and former deputy spokesman of Pheu Thai party Mr Chirayu Huangsap.

The trio allegedly accused Mr Korn, during press conferences on December 26-2, 2009, of misusing his authority as finance minister to order Thai Airways International to upgrade the air tickets of his wife and himself during an overseas trip.

The court ruled that the trio had no intention to discredit Mr Korn but they merely did their job to defend the interests of the national carrier. Also, the court said that, as opposition MPs, the trio were duty-bound to keep checks on the government’s performance.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/court-acquits-two-former-pheu-thai-ministers-one-party-member-defamation-charges


-- Thai PBS 2015-01-22

[scorecard]

"Also, the court said that, as opposition MPs, the trio were duty-bound to keep checks on the government’s performance."

There's a nice little precedent.

[Tatsujin]

"Also, the court said that, as opposition MPs, the trio were duty-bound to keep checks on the government’s performance."

There's a nice little precedent.

Precisely, and that'll be used in some upcoming impeachment and criminal cases. Couldn't have come at a more opportune time.

[bangon04]

So is the court judgement implying that the accusation was accurate and truthful? I understand that truth is not a defence in Thai defamation cases, but this verdict does seem to muddy the waters. If the accusations were untrue, then how could they be upholding their duty as opposition politicians?

[IMA_FARANG]

So is the court judgement implying that the accusation was accurate and truthful? I understand that truth is not a defence in Thai defamation cases, but this verdict does seem to muddy the waters. If the accusations were untrue, then how could they be upholding their duty as opposition politicians?

-------------------------

The court did not say the allegations were untrue and did not say the allegations were true.

That is irrelevant in this case.

They simply said that those the questioned his actions did not defame the finance minister because they did the duty required of them by questioning the Finance minister's actions.

That was their job, and that's what they did.

No intent to defame there, just questioning his actions as was required by their duty.

No defamation there.

[Thai at Heart]

So is the court judgement implying that the accusation was accurate and truthful? I understand that truth is not a defence in Thai defamation cases, but this verdict does seem to muddy the waters. If the accusations were untrue, then how could they be upholding their duty as opposition politicians?

-------------------------

The court did not say the allegations were untrue and did not say the allegations were true.

That is irrelevant in this case.

They simply said that those the questioned his actions did not defame the finance minister because they did the duty required of them by questioning the Finance minister's actions.

That was their job, and that's what they did.

No intent to defame there, just questioning his actions as was required by their duty.

No defamation there.

In which case one can assume that he did abuse his position and demand an upgrade. Good on him. What is the point in being finance minister holding 51% of the damn airline if they can't fly you first class?

[rubl]

So is the court judgement implying that the accusation was accurate and truthful? I understand that truth is not a defence in Thai defamation cases, but this verdict does seem to muddy the waters. If the accusations were untrue, then how could they be upholding their duty as opposition politicians?

-------------------------

The court did not say the allegations were untrue and did not say the allegations were true.

That is irrelevant in this case.

They simply said that those the questioned his actions did not defame the finance minister because they did the duty required of them by questioning the Finance minister's actions.

That was their job, and that's what they did.

No intent to defame there, just questioning his actions as was required by their duty.

No defamation there.

In which case one can assume that he did abuse his position and demand an upgrade. Good on him. What is the point in being finance minister holding 51% of the damn airline if they can't fly you first class?

In which case one could also assume he did not abuse his position. Good for him.

Till now no info on what those Pheu Thai ministers and spokespeople discovered. Is this another case of "I state, prove me wrong" or did the gentlemen actually file documentation on this case ?

Mind you, I can understand a spokesperson making some statement, but what where the Dept. PM and ICT minister doing?

[surangw]

taken to court for stating the obvious

[englishoak]

"Also, the court said that, as opposition MPs, the trio were duty-bound to keep checks on the government’s performance."

There's a nice little precedent.

Precisely, and that'll be used in some upcoming impeachment and criminal cases. Couldn't have come at a more opportune time.

Except Thailand dosnt use precedent, each case is tried on its own merit.

[rockingrobin]

"Also, the court said that, as opposition MPs, the trio were duty-bound to keep checks on the government’s performance."

There's a nice little precedent.

Precisely, and that'll be used in some upcoming impeachment and criminal cases. Couldn't have come at a more opportune time.

Except Thailand dosnt use precedent, each case is tried on its own merit.

Does this mean that if the case was taken to court again a different judgement could ensue

[marinediscoking]

Doesn't seem different to me than the guy who went on the cooking show.

[halloween]

Doesn't seem different to me than the guy who went on the cooking show.

I would be reluctant to reveal such ignorance.

[Ricardo]

Doesn't seem different to me than the guy who went on the cooking show.

How so, did these accused people also lie to the court, claiming that they weren't being paid, and then have evidence produced which proved they were lying ?

[Tatsujin]

"Also, the court said that, as opposition MPs, the trio were duty-bound to keep checks on the governments performance."

There's a nice little precedent.

Precisely, and that'll be used in some upcoming impeachment and criminal cases. Couldn't have come at a more opportune time.

Except Thailand dosnt use precedent, each case is tried on its own merit.

Does this mean that if the case was taken to court again a different judgement could ensue

Judicial precedent may not be binding, but it certainly has an influence and normally they will adhere to a precedent for similar cases.