Criminal Court acquits Chavanond of defaming Yingluck on Four Seasons business meeting

BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court on Monday acquitted the former Democrat party-list MP Chavanond Intarakomalyasut of defamation charge brought against him by the former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra in 2012.

The court reasoned that although Yingluck’s lawyers would affirm that the former prime minister’s meeting with five businessmen at the Four Seasons Hotel in February 2012 to hear recommendations and views on property business, was confidential, it was not publicly disclosed.

Therefore this justified Mr Chavanond who was then an opposition MP to be sceptical and come out to hold a press conference.

The court went on explaining that although some statement in the press conference by Mr Chavanond would defame the former prime minister, but what he stated was to protect national interest.

The court then acquitted him of the defamation charge.

Chavanond, meanwhile, thanked the court for the ruling saying this could serve as a significant norm in working to ensure transparency of the government work and that shall be protected by law and to enable the people to access to information.

However he still faces the same defamation charge along with two former Democrat MPs on a TV programme.

The former prime minister filed defamation charge against former party-list MP Chavanond Intarakomalyasut, former Nakhon Si Thammarat MP Tepthai Senpong, and former Songkhla MP Sirichok Sopha for making defamatory remarks about the prime minister in relation to her meeting with a group of businessmen at the Four Seasons Hotel in 2012.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/criminal-court-acquits-chavanond-of-defaming-yingluck-on-four-seasons-business-meeting


-- Thai PBS 2015-03-16

Defamation cases filed by politicians in Thailand are totally out of control. Thailand really needs to take a look at enacting what's called an anti-SLAPP law. Basically, in order to proceed on a defamation lawsuit arising out of political speech, the plaintiff must show some likelihood of success on the merits of the case. Otherwise, it's too easy to stifle political criticism by just filing a lawsuit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation#California

Interesting the defamation law.

Ms. Yingluck denied the meeting at first, her 'little while lies' Minister of Finance denied the meeting and after some zigzagging around the only thing which was made known was a meeting in which Ms. Yingluck and her financial expert 'only' listened to property developers, skipping a debate in parliament.

Interesting the defamation law.

Ms. Yingluck denied the meeting at first, her 'little while lies' Minister of Finance denied the meeting and after some zigzagging around the only thing which was made known was a meeting in which Ms. Yingluck and her financial expert 'only' listened to property developers, skipping a debate in parliament.

Matters of the State comes 2nd? Ahhh...the importance of democracy...

Wow.... didn't see that outcome coming.... not. "Not publicly disclosed" wasn't that Australian chamber of commerce lady charged with defamation when she told Thai Chinese businessman he was a crook during a private phone call a few years back? Gotta love the justice system here....

The victories just keep mounting for yellow shirt ideology and the unbiased courts!! 5555

What he said at the press conference could be deemed as defamatory, the court said. But he's NOT GUILTY.

Good old reconciliatory judiciary at work again!

The victories just keep mounting for yellow shirt ideology and the unbiased courts!! 5555

Richard tata - 1000000000000000, - everyone else - 0

Well surely if the lady and I would presume also the person she met with had nothing to hide they could have or should have made the content of the meeting public

Well surely if the lady and I would presume also the person she met with had nothing to hide they could have or should have made the content of the meeting public

Make the content public? First question had not been answered - Parliament was in session. What was so important to be having a meeting with businessmen outside of the PM Office. This would have implied it was not a matter of the govt or state.

What he said at the press conference could be deemed as defamatory, the court said. But he's NOT GUILTY.

Good old reconciliatory judiciary at work again!

Because it was in the national interest, whereas the meeting was in the PM's own interest. IMHO the meeting was to discuss the urgent building of rice warehouses, about to be sorely needed - I wonder how much the tip was worth?

Interesting the defamation law.

Ms. Yingluck denied the meeting at first, her 'little while lies' Minister of Finance denied the meeting and after some zigzagging around the only thing which was made known was a meeting in which Ms. Yingluck and her financial expert 'only' listened to property developers, skipping a debate in parliament.

Did she ever attend a non-compulsory parliament sitting? Like her brother, she seemed to forget that the PM of Thailand is also a Member of Parliament, expected not only to attend but to explain and defend her (brother's) policies.

What he said at the press conference could be deemed as defamatory, the court said. But he's NOT GUILTY.

Good old reconciliatory judiciary at work again!

Because it was in the national interest, whereas the meeting was in the PM's own interest. IMHO the meeting was to discuss the urgent building of rice warehouses, about to be sorely needed - I wonder how much the tip was worth?

Defaming her was in the national interest?

They could have just said she attended a private meeting at the hotel, which was the truth. Instead they had to make several other defamatory statements.

I feel so sorry for Yinglick, she just cannot catch a break these days

What he said at the press conference could be deemed as defamatory, the court said. But he's NOT GUILTY.

Good old reconciliatory judiciary at work again!

Because it was in the national interest, whereas the meeting was in the PM's own interest. IMHO the meeting was to discuss the urgent building of rice warehouses, about to be sorely needed - I wonder how much the tip was worth?

Defaming her was in the national interest?

They could have just said she attended a private meeting at the hotel, which was the truth. Instead they had to make several other defamatory statements.

Didn't Ms. Yingluck defame herself by publicly denying to have had a meeting ?

I'm waiting to hear the screams of support for the decision from the posters who are so vocal in support for Freedom of Speech

............If calling a duck a quack is defaming!...............................politics in Thailand is becoming a mouth full of feathers!

What he said at the press conference could be deemed as defamatory, the court said. But he's NOT GUILTY.

Good old reconciliatory judiciary at work again!

Because it was in the national interest, whereas the meeting was in the PM's own interest. IMHO the meeting was to discuss the urgent building of rice warehouses, about to be sorely needed - I wonder how much the tip was worth?

Defaming her was in the national interest?

They could have just said she attended a private meeting at the hotel, which was the truth. Instead they had to make several other defamatory statements.

Didn't Ms. Yingluck defame herself by publicly denying to have had a meeting ?

Rubi

you cannot defame yourself

Watforusalso

evidently according to the article you can state untruths if its in the national interest, however in other defamation cases it would appear telling the truth is no defence

What he said at the press conference could be deemed as defamatory, the court said. But he's NOT GUILTY.

Good old reconciliatory judiciary at work again!

Because it was in the national interest, whereas the meeting was in the PM's own interest. IMHO the meeting was to discuss the urgent building of rice warehouses, about to be sorely needed - I wonder how much the tip was worth?

Defaming her was in the national interest?

They could have just said she attended a private meeting at the hotel, which was the truth. Instead they had to make several other defamatory statements.

Didn't Ms. Yingluck defame herself by publicly denying to have had a meeting ?

Rubi

you cannot defame yourself

Watforusalso

evidently according to the article you can state untruths if its in the national interest, however in other defamation cases it would appear telling the truth is no defence

You can defame yourself but it is neither a criminal nor civil offense

If, as PM you lie and get caught, you pretty much don't have a leg to stand on when you cry to the court.

In Thailand the truth is not always a defense for defamation. This is less true when you are a public figure.

What he said at the press conference could be deemed as defamatory, the court said. But he's NOT GUILTY.

Good old reconciliatory judiciary at work again!

Because it was in the national interest, whereas the meeting was in the PM's own interest. IMHO the meeting was to discuss the urgent building of rice warehouses, about to be sorely needed - I wonder how much the tip was worth?

Defaming her was in the national interest?

They could have just said she attended a private meeting at the hotel, which was the truth. Instead they had to make several other defamatory statements.

Didn't Ms. Yingluck defame herself by publicly denying to have had a meeting ?

Rubi

you cannot defame yourself

Watforusalso

evidently according to the article you can state untruths if its in the national interest, however in other defamation cases it would appear telling the truth is no defence

You can defame yourself but it is neither a criminal nor civil offense

If, as PM you lie and get caught, you pretty much don't have a leg to stand on when you cry to the court.

In Thailand the truth is not always a defense for defamation. This is less true when you are a public figure.

From Wiki

Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed. Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.

What he said at the press conference could be deemed as defamatory, the court said. But he's NOT GUILTY.

Good old reconciliatory judiciary at work again!

Because it was in the national interest, whereas the meeting was in the PM's own interest. IMHO the meeting was to discuss the urgent building of rice warehouses, about to be sorely needed - I wonder how much the tip was worth?

Defaming her was in the national interest?

They could have just said she attended a private meeting at the hotel, which was the truth. Instead they had to make several other defamatory statements.

Didn't Ms. Yingluck defame herself by publicly denying to have had a meeting ?

Rubi

you cannot defame yourself

Watforusalso

evidently according to the article you can state untruths if its in the national interest, however in other defamation cases it would appear telling the truth is no defence

You can defame yourself but it is neither a criminal nor civil offense

If, as PM you lie and get caught, you pretty much don't have a leg to stand on when you cry to the court.

In Thailand the truth is not always a defense for defamation. This is less true when you are a public figure.

From Wiki

Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed. Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.

I am sorry, what is your point with the quote from Wikipedia

Defaming her was in the national interest?

They could have just said she attended a private meeting at the hotel, which was the truth. Instead they had to make several other defamatory statements.

But it wasn't a private meeting. First Yingluck said there wasn't a meeting, then she said it was a private meeting, then she said it was government business. But she didn't provide any information on what government business that it was.

Because it was in the national interest, whereas the meeting was in the PM's own interest. IMHO the meeting was to discuss the urgent building of rice warehouses, about to be sorely needed - I wonder how much the tip was worth?

Defaming her was in the national interest?

They could have just said she attended a private meeting at the hotel, which was the truth. Instead they had to make several other defamatory statements.

Didn't Ms. Yingluck defame herself by publicly denying to have had a meeting ?

Rubi

you cannot defame yourself

Watforusalso

evidently according to the article you can state untruths if its in the national interest, however in other defamation cases it would appear telling the truth is no defence

Pray tell, apart from Ms. Yingluck lying when she first stated that there had not been a meeting, what other untruths are you referring to?

Did you dig up the original text which was deemed by Ms. Yingluck, or whoever started the defamation case, to be defaming her? Was it a tongue-in-cheek suggestion something inappropriate might have taken place as Ms. Yingluck wasn't there officially (or even unofficially)?

Well surely if the lady and I would presume also the person she met with had nothing to hide they could have or should have made the content of the meeting public

Make the content public? First question had not been answered - Parliament was in session. What was so important to be having a meeting with businessmen outside of the PM Office. This would have implied it was not a matter of the govt or state.

Wags were saying at the time that it was a tryst. I never said that but many, many others did. I heard them say so, myself.

Well surely if the lady and I would presume also the person she met with had nothing to hide they could have or should have made the content of the meeting public

Make the content public? First question had not been answered - Parliament was in session. What was so important to be having a meeting with businessmen outside of the PM Office. This would have implied it was not a matter of the govt or state.

Wags were saying at the time that it was a tryst. I never said that but many, many others did. I heard them say so, myself.

I learned a new acronym and since I doubt I'm the only one who needed (/needs) to look it up:

"WAGs (or Wags) is an acronym used to refer to wives and girlfriends of high-profile sportsmen. The term may also be used in the singular form, "WAG", to refer to a specific female partner / life partner."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAGs

Wags were saying at the time that it was a tryst. I never said that but many, many others did. I heard them say so, myself.

I learned a new acronym and since I doubt I'm the only one who needed (/needs) to look it up:

"WAGs (or Wags) is an acronym used to refer to wives and girlfriends of high-profile sportsmen. The term may also be used in the singular form, "WAG", to refer to a specific female partner / life partner."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAGs

Long before that acronym existed, it was slang for a joker.

What he said at the press conference could be deemed as defamatory, the court said. But he's NOT GUILTY.

Good old reconciliatory judiciary at work again!

Because it was in the national interest, whereas the meeting was in the PM's own interest. IMHO the meeting was to discuss the urgent building of rice warehouses, about to be sorely needed - I wonder how much the tip was worth?

Defaming her was in the national interest?

They could have just said she attended a private meeting at the hotel, which was the truth. Instead they had to make several other defamatory statements.

Yes, it is in the national interest when the nation's elected perjurer starts lying about SECRET (not private) meetings which apparently took priority over the job she was elected to perform (however badly).

You might remember the scandal started when a government critic was assaulted by her security for observing her departure, and the subsequent string of lies, denial of attendance by all parties. and changing scenarios as facts were uncovered. To this day there has been no confirmation of attendees or subject matter, or of whether conflicts of interest arose, as all refuse to comment.

In a democracy, it is convention that a PM caught lying to the public will resign. As she did, after many more lies.

Anytime the Yingluck 4 Seasons tryst is mentioned it causes outbursts of mirth or depression depending on your political stance, but we should bear in mind that at least one person died because of what he witnessed at the 4 Seasons that fateful day. RIP Ekkayuth, activist, pyramid builder and just another in a long line of corpses that heard, saw or spoke of the clan's illicit activities. It is also a reminder of the harm caused by lying. If Yingluck had only admitted to having gone there to "bone up" on property related affairs, instead of all this "I wasn't there", "it wasn't me", "silence the witnesses" it would have been long forgotten about.

Anytime the Yingluck 4 Seasons tryst is mentioned it causes outbursts of mirth or depression depending on your political stance, but we should bear in mind that at least one person died because of what he witnessed at the 4 Seasons that fateful day. RIP Ekkayuth, activist, pyramid builder and just another in a long line of corpses that heard, saw or spoke of the clan's illicit activities. It is also a reminder of the harm caused by lying. If Yingluck had only admitted to having gone there to "bone up" on property related affairs, instead of all this "I wasn't there", "it wasn't me", "silence the witnesses" it would have been long forgotten about.

And now we get questions as to why bad things are building up for her? It's called Karma.

Offensive post removed.