Pheu Thai ex-spokesman Prompong, another MP to serve one-year jail term

[robblok]

You appeal a courts decision and then get punished for that. The right of appeal should be available without the fear of additional punishment

In any country in the world if you go before an higher court there is always the change for change in sentence.. both ways..

Normal the world over else people would keep on appealing all sentences in order to get a lower sentence.

[wvavin]

What is the point of a jail sentence whereby there is absolutely no real person in custody? Such rule of law would only drive away sane investors.

[phoenixdoglover]

You appeal a courts decision and then get punished for that. The right of appeal should be available without the fear of additional punishment

In any country in the world if you go before an higher court there is always the change for change in sentence.. both ways..

Normal the world over else people would keep on appealing all sentences in order to get a lower sentence.

You are incorrect.

In the US, the Supreme Court does not change sentences ever.

Their sole function is to review the decisions of lower courts and determine if the decision should be upheld or overturned. In no case would the Supreme Court change the sentencing.

There are very ample reasons for this limitation. An appeals court typically does not conduct a trial; and the judges do not have the benefit of hearing testimony and viewing evidence in the context of a trial. Instead, they review the trial record. This puts the appeals court at a distinct disadvantage if they were to judge guilt or innocence. Therefore, they are not tasked with that. They are tasked with determining if the lower court trial was conducted properly and in accordance with the law and the constitution.

In Thailand, it is different. The Supreme Court is given excessive responsibilities and power.

[Baerboxer]

Now that is out of the way, how about trial of Suthep for laundry list of major felonies against the government?

How about extraditing Thaksin so he can face the 15 outstanding court cases waiting his return?

[halloween]

You appeal a courts decision and then get punished for that. The right of appeal should be available without the fear of additional punishment

The right of appeal allows you to have your case re-heard. Nowhere that I know of is there a guarantee that their will not be a negative outcome for the appellant.

I vaguely recall an internet story about a guy who appealed twice and had his sentence reduced each time. On his 3rd and final appeal he was sentenced to death. Shit happens.

[nithisa78]

What a maroon! Judge gives you a slap on the wrist and you decide to give the dice another roll, end up with a year in the slammer.

they are the ruling class - they look out for each other. the appeal is part of the capitalist scheme.

so many see this play out a million times and still don't / can't get it. I don't think the color of the judge had anything to do with it. I'm also sure his intelligence is not in question. Their lives are just better than yours. Face it, live with it.

[nithisa78]

Now that is out of the way, how about trial of Suthep for laundry list of major felonies against the government?

How about extraditing Thaksin so he can face the 15 outstanding court cases waiting his return?

they are the ruling class - they look out for each other. the appeal is part of the capitalist scheme.

so many see this play out a million times and still don't / can't get it. I don't think the color of the judge had anything to do with it. I'm also sure his intelligence is not in question. Their lives are just better than yours. Face it, live with it.

[halloween]

You are incorrect.

In the US, the Supreme Court does not change sentences ever.

Their sole function is to review the decisions of lower courts and determine if the decision should be upheld or overturned. In no case would the Supreme Court change the sentencing.

There are very ample reasons for this limitation. An appeals court typically does not conduct a trial; and the judges do not have the benefit of hearing testimony and viewing evidence in the context of a trial. Instead, they review the trial record. This puts the appeals court at a distinct disadvantage if they were to judge guilt or innocence. Therefore, they are not tasked with that. They are tasked with determining if the lower court trial was conducted properly and in accordance with the law and the constitution.

In Thailand, it is different. The Supreme Court is given excessive responsibilities and power.

If you read the OP, the appeals court changed the sentence, the Supreme Court upheld the Appeals court decision.

[halloween]

What a maroon! Judge gives you a slap on the wrist and you decide to give the dice another roll, end up with a year in the slammer.

they are the ruling class - they look out for each other. the appeal is part of the capitalist scheme.

so many see this play out a million times and still don't / can't get it. I don't think the color of the judge had anything to do with it. I'm also sure his intelligence is not in question. Their lives are just better than yours. Face it, live with it.

I'm not about to spend a year in jail for shooting my mouth off. Given a choice, I'd take my life anytime. Face it, live with it.

[nithisa78]

Hail royalist warrior.

Indeed.

[scorecard]

You appeal a courts decision and then get punished for that. The right of appeal should be available without the fear of additional punishment

In any country in the world if you go before an higher court there is always the change for change in sentence.. both ways..

Normal the world over else people would keep on appealing all sentences in order to get a lower sentence.

You are incorrect.

In the US, the Supreme Court does not change sentences ever.

Their sole function is to review the decisions of lower courts and determine if the decision should be upheld or overturned. In no case would the Supreme Court change the sentencing.

There are very ample reasons for this limitation. An appeals court typically does not conduct a trial; and the judges do not have the benefit of hearing testimony and viewing evidence in the context of a trial. Instead, they review the trial record. This puts the appeals court at a distinct disadvantage if they were to judge guilt or innocence. Therefore, they are not tasked with that. They are tasked with determining if the lower court trial was conducted properly and in accordance with the law and the constitution.

In Thailand, it is different. The Supreme Court is given excessive responsibilities and power.

Why do you say excessive?

[bobmac10]

Ah beautiful,

all the apologists for the junta right on cue....

As usual you got it wrong, bob, but we are getting used to it.

Not junta apologists at all, we have nothing to apologize for, but these scumbag pin-up boys of yours certainly do.

You really must learn the difference between a legit junta supporter and someone who does not support them while having a distinct "dislike" ??? for anyone tarred with the Shin brush.

Maybe then you can post comments that are not based on bs.

Capice ?

Well Gee Mikemac, I don't recall mentioning anyone's name in my post.... but of course if you think I am referring to you (apologist for the junta) then go right ahead.

If the cap fits... wear it!

You said - ...................."all the apologists for the junta right on cue".................. then just who were you referring to ? The seven or eight posters who commented on the story before you did ? The ones who agreed with this dirtbag being sent to prison ?

Are they "all the apologists" or are there more ?

Maybe I will PM each one of them and ask them if they are junta apologists just to see how accurate your comment was.

I have a feeling I already know what the outcome will be.

Mike mac, you've been an apologist for these military clowns since day one, all your previous posts clearly spell out your approval of them.

So why start dodging about now?

It's always a good laugh when you chip in with your ultra-conservative views.

[gamini]

Corruption is about more than money - such as highly politicised courts, and stacking of public departments with Yes-men.

Question is, when the enemy has been put down and put away, how long before this loose anti-red coalition breaks up and starts turning on their own.

Your post is completely irrelevant. This is a case of contempt of court which in any country is a serious offence

[pieeyed]

bobmac10 you seem to be a doxk that has not followed the political situation in Thailand for the last 30 years.

[Trouble]

Amazing to me that because of the dislike many of you have for this guy and the PTP you willingly accept that a defamation case is heard in a criminal not civil court. If you don't like what someone has to say he should go to jail? It is not like he was convicted of corruption. In most countries defamation is a civil case. In Thailand using criminal courts to put a person in jail is used to keep people quiet. Seems like most of you are happy to have people go to jail because they have a loud mouth and they don't agree with your political views.

[waitforusalso]

Whereas those on the PRDC stage were calling Yingluck a prostitute & threatening her son.

[phoenixdoglover]

You appeal a courts decision and then get punished for that. The right of appeal should be available without the fear of additional punishment

In any country in the world if you go before an higher court there is always the change for change in sentence.. both ways..

Normal the world over else people would keep on appealing all sentences in order to get a lower sentence.

You are incorrect.

In the US, the Supreme Court does not change sentences ever.

Their sole function is to review the decisions of lower courts and determine if the decision should be upheld or overturned. In no case would the Supreme Court change the sentencing.

There are very ample reasons for this limitation. An appeals court typically does not conduct a trial; and the judges do not have the benefit of hearing testimony and viewing evidence in the context of a trial. Instead, they review the trial record. This puts the appeals court at a distinct disadvantage if they were to judge guilt or innocence. Therefore, they are not tasked with that. They are tasked with determining if the lower court trial was conducted properly and in accordance with the law and the constitution.

In Thailand, it is different. The Supreme Court is given excessive responsibilities and power.

Why do you say excessive?

In my view, the Supreme Court's role should be solely for appeals and constitutional questions.

Instead, the Supreme Court has divisions that conduct criminal trials (for corruption by politicians). If you are convicted by the Supreme Court, you may have nowhere to turn. In their own words at http://www.coj.go.th/ "Orders and decisions of the Supreme Court Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions will be published and final."

[phoenixdoglover]

You are incorrect.

In the US, the Supreme Court does not change sentences ever.

Their sole function is to review the decisions of lower courts and determine if the decision should be upheld or overturned. In no case would the Supreme Court change the sentencing.

There are very ample reasons for this limitation. An appeals court typically does not conduct a trial; and the judges do not have the benefit of hearing testimony and viewing evidence in the context of a trial. Instead, they review the trial record. This puts the appeals court at a distinct disadvantage if they were to judge guilt or innocence. Therefore, they are not tasked with that. They are tasked with determining if the lower court trial was conducted properly and in accordance with the law and the constitution.

In Thailand, it is different. The Supreme Court is given excessive responsibilities and power.

If you read the OP, the appeals court changed the sentence, the Supreme Court upheld the Appeals court decision.

In that case, my criticism should be directed at the appeals court and the Supreme Court.

An appeals court should not be increasing sentences, and the Supreme Court should not allow them to do that.

[Lite Beer]

Two Pheu Thai politicians get a year in jail for libel
THE NATION

Pheu Thai Party spokesman Prompong Nopparit is escorted into the Bangkok Remand Prison yesterday. The Supreme Court sentenced him and former Pheu Thai MP Kiartudom Menasawat to a year in prison for libelling former Constitutional Court president Wasant So

BANGKOK: -- PHEU THAI Party spokesman Prompong Nopparit and another party politician were sentenced to a year in jail yesterday for libelling former Constitution Court president Wasant Soypisut.

The Supreme Court found Prompong and Kiart-udom Menasawat, both former Pheu Thai MPs, guilty of making slanderous statements via media against Wasant in June 2010.

In the statement, Prompong and Kiart-udom accused Wasant of lacking neutrality and credibility as a judge, which prompted him to file a lawsuit a week later.

In July 2012, a lower court found both defendants guilty and sentenced them to a year in jail each, but suspended the punishment for two years, as they had no criminal record. They were also ordered to publish an apology in three newspapers for seven consecutive days.

However, the politicians appealed against the verdict and in December 2013, the Appeals Court found them guilty and sentenced them to a year in jail with no option for a suspended sentence. Yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld this ruling.

The politicians' friends and relatives were in the courtroom for moral support, and when Pichit Chuenban - a party member and former legal adviser to ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra - hugged Prompong, the latter was heard saying "it's OK, I'm still fine".

Prompong and Kiart-udom were later escorted out of the courtroom by corrections officials.

Separately, the Supreme Court yesterday discussed the defamation case against former and current Democrat Party politicians filed by Prommin Lertsuridej, an executive of the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai party. After deliberation, the judges decided to dismiss the case against former Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban, who is now a Buddhist monk, party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva and former party spokesman Ongart Klampaiboon.

After hearing the verdict, the three defendants walked out of the courtroom without speaking to reporters.

Prommin had sued the Democrat Party and the three politicians for accusing him of being involved in electoral fraud.

When a lower court dismissed the case in 2009, Prommin appealed and the Appeals Court in 2012 sentenced Suthep to a suspended sentence of four months in jail.

The Supreme Court yesterday altered the ruling and dismissed the case.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Two-Pheu-Thai-politicians-get-a-year-in-jail-for-l-30265193.html

-- The Nation 2015-07-25

[MaiChai]

Does suspended sentence holders in Thailand ever make it to prison? Seems to be a perk of the rich and famous? Go to prison but never actually go?

Unless you upset the judiciary by appealing!

Edited July 24, 2015 by MaiChai

[halloween]

If you read the OP, the appeals court changed the sentence, the Supreme Court upheld the Appeals court decision.

In that case, my criticism should be directed at the appeals court and the Supreme Court.

An appeals court should not be increasing sentences, and the Supreme Court should not allow them to do that.

Defendants AND prosecutors have the right of appeal, and the Appeals court has every right to increase sentences, here and elsewhere. It is a re-hearing of the case.

[halloween]

What a maroon! Judge gives you a slap on the wrist and you decide to give the dice another roll, end up with a year in the slammer.

Prompong is a moron.

I'll bet that he'll miss that cushion during the next year.

[JAG]

anyone else see the funny side of this - all of it

Indeed, I find jailing your political opponents on "defamation charges" absolutely hysterical. L

[robblok]

anyone else see the funny side of this - all of it

Indeed, I find jailing your political opponents on "defamation charges" absolutely hysterical. L

You have no sense of humor

The guy got off with a slap on the wrist.. but still was not happy and played the odds..

That is humor.. dark humor but humor.

When you get off light and think your entitled to more and get a slap on the face.

[smutcakes]

The only reason this one ended up in jail was due to who he allegedly defamed. Mayybe if he could of proven his defamation was in "good will' like good old Suthep he would of got off.

[mikemac]

I don't agree with these guys being sent to prison, not even for one day. They would be a bad influence on the other prisoners.

[bobmac10]

Ah beautiful,

all the apologists for the junta right on cue....

As usual you got it wrong, bob, but we are getting used to it.

Not junta apologists at all, we have nothing to apologize for, but these scumbag pin-up boys of yours certainly do.

You really must learn the difference between a legit junta supporter and someone who does not support them while having a distinct "dislike" ??? for anyone tarred with the Shin brush.

Maybe then you can post comments that are not based on bs.

Capice ?

Who's we?

You and your other coup supporters?

If you are a supporter which you have said you are in previous posts then you are an apologist for the junta.

An apologist is one who argues in favour of something unpopular or a belief.

That's you, so you have to accept the word.

Go ahead and report me Mike, are you such a thin-skinned conservative?

And what is this Capice at the end of every post? or are you mimicking the mafia?

[robblok]

The only reason this one ended up in jail was due to who he allegedly defamed. Mayybe if he could of proven his defamation was in "good will' like good old Suthep he would of got off.

Could you give me some proof that there was no defamation.. I am sure Prompong would love to have your proof because i assume you have some else its not allegedly but WHO HE defamed.

Or do you think you know better as the courts ?

[halloween]

anyone else see the funny side of this - all of it

Indeed, I find jailing your political opponents on "defamation charges" absolutely hysterical. L

I don't think Appeals or Supreme Court judges have political opponents. OTOH he is a member of a criminal organisation, so it may well appear that way if you are willing to overlook the primary consideration of guilt.

[smutcakes]

The only reason this one ended up in jail was due to who he allegedly defamed. Mayybe if he could of proven his defamation was in "good will' like good old Suthep he would of got off.

Could you give me some proof that there was no defamation.. I am sure Prompong would love to have your proof because i assume you have some else its not allegedly but WHO HE defamed.

Or do you think you know better as the courts ?

Okay amended it for you, not that it makes any difference to my point,

The only reason this one ended up in jail was due to who he defamed. Mayybe if he could of proven his defamation was in "good will' like good old Suthep he would of got off.