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

[meltingpot2015]

I understood it as the original decision by the Juvenile Court now stands. So three year probation that came in to effect in August 2012...so that order will finish August 2015. Just Three months left.

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.

She must have had a good lawyer being a hi-so.

Using mobile phones while driving is lethal. Toying with the same phone after such an accident (that killed 9 people). That's disgraceful. It shows no remorse.

Edited May 12, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[cardinalblue]

Probation and 48 hours of charity work...

Is it no wonder why road safety won't improve...

CB

[Johnny S]

Every time I read something about this miscarriage of justice I am reminded of the iconic photo of her texting immediately after the crash, her body language just says it all

texting.png

When questioned about it the family spokesman (don't they all have one) said she was texting her father. Facebook members say she was updating her Facebook profile (since deleted) so who are you going to believe

Nice pic - may she rot in hell. Perhaps the relatives of the poor people she killed will make sure that something happens to her (can always hope for it) - an eye for an eye is okay in this case

[AyG]

Probation and 48 hours of charity work...

Is it no wonder why road safety won't improve...

CB

It's much harsher than that: 48 hours of charity work per year. Positively draconian. One can't but help feel sorry for her. I do hope she doesn't have to interact with the little people whilst doing it. That really wouldn't be fair.

[cardinalblue]

She was appealing from doing the charity work. The family asked if one of their Burmese slaves could act as a replacement...

CB

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

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

NO... that was the original sentence, and was later cut by the Appeals Court to 4 years probation.

She never served a day in jail or prison as a result of the court verdicts.

I gather, she wanted to get her driving rights returned prior to the original age 25 restriction. Bummer to be hi-so and be unable to drive your own car, even after killing a bunch of people.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

"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" ... can anyone make head or tail of this garbage?

No, this a perfect example of intentional Thai double speak that is designed to do exactly what it did, confuse anyone who reads it.

They wrote "upheld," but obviously should have said "withheld" meaning they weren't going to re-publish her name.

..Even though, her name had originally been widely published in news reports in the wake of the crash. But no... don't want to cause any more loss of face or embarrassment for the girl and her family.

[AyG]

The Na Ayudhya's and other old elite families

In the interests of accuracy, the "Na Ayudhya's" aren't a single clan". "Na Ayudhya" is a title for royal descendants who don't qualify for any of the more exalted ones. It's appended to the family name, so in the case of the driver, Orachorn Thephasadin Na Ayudhya, her family name is Thephasadin.

Here are some photos of one of her relatives, Nat Thephasadin Na Ayudhya (step brother or half brother - not sure which): http://picpost.postjung.com/204552.html He broke his girlfriend's nose in 2006, allegedly accidentally. I believe he was sentenced to two years in prison, suspended*.

I'm sure the parents are very proud of them both.

*So the son gets 2 years suspended for accidentally breaking someone's nose, and the daughter gets 2 years suspended for killing a bunch of people. Surely that can't be right.

Edited May 12, 2015 by AyG

[nahkit]

What exactly was she appealing?

Getting probation for killing loads of people? Some would say, she should be happy with what she got...

My memory may be playing tricks on me but I seem to recall at the time that she appealed the suspended sentence because she wanted to travel to the USA and having a criminal conviction could affect the visa process.

(I could be wrong but I'm too lazy to go back and google it).

[scorecard]

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

What exactly was she appealing?

Getting probation for killing loads of people? Some would say, she should be happy with what she got...

My memory may be playing tricks on me but I seem to recall at the time that she appealed the suspended sentence because she wanted to travel to the USA and having a criminal conviction could affect the visa process.

(I could be wrong but I'm too lazy to go back and google it).

I recall that just after the incident her slightly older brother tried to act as per spokesman because her own comments were not helping.

[Alwyn]

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.

I'm native English, had a very adequate education and I'm unclear on the post as the two sentences are not linked, it reads as if from two different cases and two different people. The only thing I can do is make an assumption that she was sented to prison by one court and probation by another court. Do the sentences run concurrently? Does one sentence over-rule the other sentence? If so, which wat? One court sentencing was ASugust 2012, what date was the other? One court sentenced her the other "granted" probation which would indicate that was the sentence which was final? You haven't explained anything, you just copied and pasted the stuff (and hilighted bits) that people are curious about. You have not explained anything nor what your understanding/comprehension is and why.

[arthurwait]

At the time the Shins were in power and this was propaganda gold and newspaper sales gold. People really need to stop believing what was written and what tenious links were made then and are still being carried on now.

[robertthebruce]

Terrible, she deserves a lot more...

Meanwhile the "Red Bull" Guy still walks free.....

Money Talks.. Unfortunately....

[meltingpot2015]

Her appeal to the supreme court had gotten the probation down from four years (Appeals COurt sentence) to Three years (original Juvenile and Family Court sentence).

Try..Try..(oops!, probation order gone up by one year)..Try again (back to three years...she can live with that..especially since there is only three months to go..shame the families of the perished don't get the same merri-go-round)

By the way, what about the driving ban until she was 25 (by the appeals court). If the original sentence is back, that means that's no longer effective, because that was part of the sentence of the appeals court.

Guess its far too demeaning for a HiSo to take public transport, or worse, to be driven around everywhere with a driver.

Edited: Just found that the driving ban was also part of the sentence by the juvenile court..so that should still be effective (until she is 25), whether it is enforced that's another question.

Edited May 12, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[elgordo38]

Two years?

Don't need to say anymore than that.

If i read this right the two years was converted to 4 years probation. Family must be connected and have money. Should have lost her drivers license for life. 9 is a lot of lives to take and walk away with a slap on the wrist.

[marquess]

If Parayut was really serious about reform he would have this criminal girl frog marched straight to jail, and show the country that the really means business. Sadly to quote the great Neapolitan Prince of Lampedeusa, 'For things to remain the same, things will have to change'.

[baboon]

Why could they not determine whether or not she used her mobile phone.

1) After the incident her phone would have retained usage details.

2) The Network provider should be able to supply this.

There has to be a will for a full investigation to be carried out. Remember as a minor she was handled by the juvenile authorities

I am sure that if this case had involved lese majeste there would have been a full investigation of the records you list

But as it isn't a LM case, I would imagine that the phone records are in the process of being lost as we speak...

[elgordo38]

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.

Simple hire a stand in.

[NongKhaiKid]

Two years?

Don't need to say anymore than that.

If i read this right the two years was converted to 4 years probation. Family must be connected and have money. Should have lost her drivers license for life. 9 is a lot of lives to take and walk away with a slap on the wrist.

I agree about an inadequate sentence but what does it matter if she was banned for life as people drive without licences all the time and a ban would mean nothing. ?

In her home area it's unlikely she would be arrested for driving while disqualified because of who she is and elsewhere she just pays the fine for not carrying her licence. i doubt there's any form of central registry of disqualified drivers and the BIB on roadblock duty would be unlikely to check anyway,

[newnative]

She sounds like a real piece of work. I guess her next step will be to demand a new car from the relatives of the killed van riders.

[Mister Fixit]

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

I think I said that in about post number 6 ...

Na Ayudhya is NOT a family, it's a title.

According to the Family Name Act, B.E.2465, Rama VI ordered that royal descendants who do not hold any title should append the words "Na Ayudhya" (ณ อยุธยา) to their surname, to signify they are descended from a royal blood line.

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

My landlady and her daughter are called 'Na Ayudhaya' because the father is a Mom Luang (and a retired Air Chief Marshal in the RTAF) so they can use that to append Na Ayudhaya to HIS surname.

And they are the nicest family I have ever met, utterly delightful, no airs and graces whatever.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Mister Fixit

[AyG]

She is of the Na Ayudhya family. No further comments needed[/size]

I think I said that in about post number 6 ...

Na Ayudhya is NOT a family, it's a title.

No. What you actually said was

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

[scorecard]

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

If Parayut was really serious about reform he would have this criminal girl frog marched straight to jail, and show the country that the really means business. Sadly to quote the great Neapolitan Prince of Lampedeusa, 'For things to remain the same, things will have to change'.

I totally agree that the sentence given here is wrong and IMHO opinion, given the facts that are freely available, she should have been sentenced to jail and never allowed ever to have a drivers license, all after proper legal process of course.

But I don't agree that General Prayut or any PM or any military officer or any other person should arbitrarily 'frog march' anybody to jail. In fact if General Prayut did take such an action the anti junta TV forum members would go crazy.

Lack of respect for the law and lack of respect for proper legal process desperately needs improvement, If the general or any PM or whatever did this it would create a very undesirable legal precedent and just reinforce lack of respect for the law and the process.

What should have happened, in due process, is that the public prosecutors should have very quickly lodged an objection / an appeal to the sentence and refilled the charges for further process.

It's now several years since the original court process and decision and the prosecutors have never lodged an appeal .

The fact that they didn't should be subject to further investigation, and I hope the lawyers for the unfortunate victims have the balls to raise this point.

In fact to give proper professional legal advice to their clients (the victims families) they should have already some time back raised the lack of appeal by the public prosecutors for investigation.

Edited May 12, 2015 by scorecard

[Ulic]

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?

From what I understand from the time on the original sentence is she thought it was grossly unfair

that she had to do 48 hours community service. This is what she/the family was appealing.

[Jim walker]

Someone should appeal regarding such an over lenient sentence for killing 9 people she should have been locked up for a long time if this had been in any country other than Thailand I am sure she would have a much more just sentence to fit the crime.

[pacovl46]

Unbelievable! There she kills 9 people because she thinks it's cool to be speeding with a car on a highway without even having a drivers license, and then she has the nerve to appeal the slap-on-the-wrist sentence?! If it was up to me, I'd give her the original three years sentence and would ship her off to a nasty prison for being such an unscrupulous little $@!!!

[stephenterry]

Finally, all the legal obstacles have now been overcome, and the victims' families can sue for compensation. I hope they win. The fact that the perp has showed no remorse in respect of the victims is what riles me most. If I had been her father she would have been sent off to the nunnery for the two years or whatever of her probation to learn humility and a little respect for human life (other than hers).

[sambum]

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.........

I wonder - who's her Daddy?

Sorry - have just read some of the earlier posts - I am totally underwhelmed and unsurprised by the fact that she comes from a "hi-so" family.

Once again - I think money has been talking!

Edited May 12, 2015 by sambum

[sambum]

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

It's not that straightforward. Consider the "Windsor" name in Britain. Nobody would rational suggest that Barbara of that ilk has the same level of privilege or social status as Brenda, Brian and the rest of the tribe. It's the same with the na ayudhaya clan.

" It's the same with the na ayudhaya clan."

I think not! I think that as soon as the judge saw the surname, the punishment, or lack of it was already a foregone conclusion.

[ratcatcher]