Supreme Court rejects appeal by female teenager in fatal van fall from the expressway

[webfact]

Supreme Court rejects appeal by female teenager in fatal van fall from the expressway



BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court today rejected an appeal by a female teenager who was earlier sentenced to two years in prison for reckless driving that caused nine people dead when a taxi van fell from the expressway after it was rammed by her car almost five years ago.

The statement rejecting the teenager’s appeal, now turns 21, was read at the Central Juvenile and Family Court late this afternoon at the appearance of the teenager, whose name was upheld as the fatal accident happened when she was an underaged or 17 years old, her parents and families of the nine victims killed in the December 27, 2010 incident.

The Supreme Court said in its statement there was no significant evidence to reverse the ruling on August 2012 by the Central Juvenile and Family Court that sentenced her to three years in prison but commuted by one third to two years in prison.

The juvenile court also granted three-year probation for her prison term, and mandated her to three year behaviour control, 48 hours of working to caring road accident patients, and report authorities every three months.

A charge that she used mobile telephone during the driving was dropped as there was no proof to support the charge.

She appealed the sentence to the Appeal Court.

Later the Appeals Court sentenced her to two years imprisonment and banned her to drive until she turns 25 years old. The prison term, however, was commuted to four year probation instead with 48 hours of charity working for one year.

She appealed to the Supreme Court which rejected her appeal with reason there was no significant evidence to reverse the original. ruling.

Relatives of the victims burst in tears after hearing the statement.

They were consulting lawyers to pursue civil cases with the teenager to demand compensation for their perished relatives in the fatal accident.

The incident happened on the night of December 27 when she rammed her Honda Civic sedan at the taxi van on the expressway near Kaset intersection.

The van fell off the expressway on the ground killing nine people.

She was earlier allegedly reported to making a mobile phone call while driving on the expressway.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-by-female-teenager-in-fatal-van-fall-from-the-expressway


-- Thai PBS 2015-05-11

[Cuchulainn]

Two years?

Don't need to say anymore than that.

[Somtamnication]

Reduced to 4 years probation!

[Prbkk]

This report is garbled. Has the court sentenced her to prison or reaffirmed the Appeals Court commutation? If the latter she is free .

[ChrisY1]

4 years on probation..........for being responsible for the deaths of 9 people..........this should definately be in the international media..!

A most disgraceful display of the Thai justice system.........

[Just1Voice]

Now that the court cases are settled, I hope the relatives of those killed sue the asses off her and her parents, and leave them without a stang.

[Mister Fixit]

Na Ayudhya - her hi-so surname says it all ...

[WitawatWatawit]

^^^ #4-- I read it as 2 years behind bars.

[baboon]

So she kills 9 innocent people, ends up with a bit of probation and appeals even that? Am I correct here or have I misread the OP?

[AyG]

Funny how the owner of the car (who presumably gave her permission to drive it whilst she was underage and uninsured) has never been named, far less prosecuted. Wonder why that is.

[SABloke]

So she kills 9 innocent people, ends up with a bit of probation and appeals even that? Am I correct here or have I misread the OP?

You are correct. She's brat that doesn't want wait until 25 to drive again. sad sad world we live in.

[z42]

Unbelievable arrogance for her to even appeal her ridiculously lenient sentence considering 9 different families are eternally broken as a result of her criminality.

The fact the judgement is upheld at least strengthens the bereaved families' cases for damages and compensation. I hope the driver's family are taken for practically everything

[EyesWideOpen]

Unbelievable arrogance for her to even appeal her ridiculously lenient sentence considering 9 different families are eternally broken as a result of her criminality.

The fact the judgement is upheld at least strengthens the bereaved families' cases for damages and compensation. I hope the driver's family are taken for practically everything

Given her family's last name, sadly they will be taken for..........nothing.

[bdenner]

Just hope the ghosts of her pass are less merciful than the Thai judicial system!

[Puwa]

ThaiPBS desperately needs an English editor.

[ChrisY1]

This report is garbled. Has the court sentenced her to prison or reaffirmed the Appeals Court commutation? If the latter she is free .

The way I read it is that she has bee placed on probation for 4 years, in lieu of a prison term......and she's free!

[AyG]

This report is garbled. Has the court sentenced her to prison or reaffirmed the Appeals Court commutation? If the latter she is free .

The way I read it is that she has bee placed on probation for 4 years, in lieu of a prison term......and she's free!

She's always been free. The original sentence was two years in prison, suspended for three years. No prospect of her spending a minute behind bars for what she did.

[Basil B]

I get the impression the appeal of the original sentence (3 year commuted to 2 etc), in which the appeal court commuted to 4 years probation, that it is the appeal that has been quashed by the Supreme Court and she now has to do the 2 years.

[JOC]

In a country where mushroom-pickers are sentenced to 15 years, and garbage-collectors are given prison time for selling pirated CD's, this spoiled brat has the nerve to appeal a no-prison sentence after killing 8 people!!

Just proves, that some people really believe, they are above the law!!

And sadly they are.

[greenchair]

This report is garbled. Has the court sentenced her to prison or reaffirmed the Appeals Court commutation? If the latter she is free .

The way I read it is that she has bee placed on probation for 4 years, in lieu of a prison term......and she's free!

No. The first court sentenced her to two years.

She appealed and won and was free.

The second court changed the sentence to 4 years probation.

She pushed her luck and appealed the probation.

The third court, upheld the first court ruling. There is no right to appeal the third court.it is the end of the road for all appeals.

She will go or probably is already in prison.

The family should sue the lawyer that advised her to appeal the second very generous court.

[Anthony5]

I get the impression the appeal of the original sentence (3 year commuted to 2 etc), in which the appeal court commuted to 4 years probation, that it is the appeal that has been quashed by the Supreme Court and she now has to do the 2 years.

I'm probably one of the only few on this forum that isn't native English, and I have no problem to comprehend the ruling.

That shows that I have been to school for free and others for nothing.

The Supreme Court said in its statement there was no significant evidence to reverse the ruling on August 2012 by the Central Juvenile and Family Court that sentenced her to three years in prison but commuted by one third to two years in prison.

The juvenile court also granted three-year probation for her prison term, and mandated her to three year behaviour control, 48 hours of working to caring road accident patients, and report authorities every three months.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Anthony5

[AyG]

This report is garbled. Has the court sentenced her to prison or reaffirmed the Appeals Court commutation? If the latter she is free .

The way I read it is that she has bee placed on probation for 4 years, in lieu of a prison term......and she's free!

No. The first court sentenced her to two years.

She appealed and won and was free.

The second court changed the sentence to 4 years probation.

She pushed her luck and appealed the probation.

The third court, upheld the first court ruling. There is no right to appeal the third court.it is the end of the road for all appeals.

She will go or probably is already in prison.

The family should sue the lawyer that advised her to appeal the second very generous court.

The first court sentenced her to two years suspended (down from three). (See http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bb4_1398155032 - there's a better Bangkok Post link, but I can't post that.)

If it's the first court's ruling that has been upheld, the it's still a suspended sentence and she's not in prison, or ever going to go inside one.

[cgphuket]

I am 100% sure I remember she was sentenced to 4 years probation, and 48 hours community service, and she was going to appeal that. Now she will get 1 or 2 years in jail? Sounds like daddy's money is running out and the police need to throw the public a bone, but doubt she will serve a day.

[lildragon]

I wonder if Somchai the taxi driver had of done this would the sentence be so lenient?

If you are the kids of high sos feel free to recklessly kill a van full of people or mow down a policeman while you're drugged up in your ferrari. You won't do any prison time no matter if it is democrat, PTP or Junta in charge!

I actually feel quite sick. I hope the families keep pushing so at the very least this family (who haven't even apologized to the victims families if I'm not mistaken?) will forever be reminded of it.

Edited May 11, 2015 by lildragon

[longtom]

I understand that all verdicts were on probation.

But of course the 48 hours of community service would be such a shame that they appealed. Imagine a member of that family (!) cleaning the road for a few hours or helping some plebs, just utterly unthinkable.

[JOC]

No matter what the very unclear OP says or not, I can guarantee you that nobody with the name Na Ayudhya is ever going to spend one second behind bars!!

To stay within forum rules, I suggest you google the name.

They belong to the protected species..........................

[greenchair]

This report is garbled. Has the court sentenced her to prison or reaffirmed the Appeals Court commutation? If the latter she is free .

The way I read it is that she has bee placed on probation for 4 years, in lieu of a prison term......and she's free!

No. The first court sentenced her to two years.

She appealed and won and was free.

The second court changed the sentence to 4 years probation.

She pushed her luck and appealed the probation.

The third court, upheld the first court ruling. There is no right to appeal the third court.it is the end of the road for all appeals.

She will go or probably is already in prison.

The family should sue the lawyer that advised her to appeal the second very generous court.

The first court sentenced her to two years suspended (down from three). (See http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bb4_1398155032 - there's a better Bangkok Post link, but I can't post that.)

If it's the first court's ruling that has been upheld, the it's still a suspended sentence and she's not in prison, or ever going to go inside one.

Oh right, got it ??

[MobileContent]

Funny how the owner of the car (who presumably gave her permission to drive it whilst she was underage and uninsured) has never been named, far less prosecuted. Wonder why that is.

She is of the Na Ayudhya family. No further comments needed

[Buffy Frobisher]

No proof that she was on the phone? How about checking the network records against the time she hit the van. I guess there must "important" people in the loop for that not to have happened. Anywhere else that would be manslaughter and you'd be looking at bars (iron ones, not your fave dance variety while you're on probation) for a good number of years, even with a plea bargain. No jail time, and just four years on probation with a measly 2 days of charity work, makes a mockery of the 9 dead souls! TiT!

[Prbkk]

No matter what the very unclear OP says or not, I can guarantee you that nobody with the name Na Ayudhya is ever going to spend one second behind bars!!

To stay within forum rules, I suggest you google the name.

They belong to the protected species..........................

Probably correct but begs the question: why was she driving a Honda Civic? ( not that it's of any significance for the poor buggers who were killed through her negligence)