Thai Court criticised for indicting UK human rights activist in defamation case

[Baerboxer]

Sure, a court has to apply laws, but that doesn't mean everybody has to agree with those laws.

Going undercover into an organization can be a dangerous task, and the whistleblower needs protection if his/her revealings are based on facts, not the organization.

Protection from defamation should be regarded as a human right and not be applied to organizations.

The whole concept of "juristic persons" in laws is questionable imho.

To be fair organizations should and are protected against defamation. People, in most countries, generally, enjoy freedom of speech and can complain and comment accordingly. However, if you carried out a sustained campaign against an organization or particular brand, you may find yourself defending a case. But it would be a civil case. And, you'd need to go pretty far to provoke most organizations.

Here you can face criminal and civil cases and the defenses are different. Here the truth is not a defense, re-stating something already in the public domain is not a defense, as it would be in some other countries.

Mr. Hall and his team need to show that a) it was true and b there was a strong public benefit need to reveal this. If he can show a) then b would seem obvious given all the issues on being a Tier 3 country etc.

The Thai law allows businesses to stop people saying things that will harm their reputation, seek damages and punish the offenders. Whilst that's good protection from liars and prevents dubious statements aimed at affecting competitors, you can see why the Thais introduced that law here, it also can be used as a convenient gag. Threats of criminal prosecution, civil claims for massive damages, as the plaintiff here, are enough to put a lot off.

Well done Mr. Hall for not crumbling and seeing it through. Of course, if he has the facts, this could be a big win for his organization. And, again, will incur international media coverage and comment.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Baerboxer

[speedtripler]

I don't understand why the owners of Natural Fruit have not been charged with the findings of

this report

The ubiquitous "Brown Envelopes" are most likely is why they have not been charged....and also probably why/how they secured the indictment.

I get it that journalists are often sensationalist, and a large percentage are bleeding-heart liberals as well, but to go crying about a nay-sayer will just attract attention.

Natural Fruit should, if innocent, invite any and all journalists to inspect anything they have, with ZERO restrictions....Let them come in undercover if they want.

It's not like they are processing plutonium or some other 'State Secret' product.

If they are innocent it would come to light quite quickly & Andy Hall would be shown up as a fraud and be marginalized.

As it is, I'll never touch one of their products ever again.

The problem is, nobody knows their pineapple or whatever might have been supplied by a company who use slave labour

People like tescos are selling the pineapples and related products and they are responsible also but they will buy from the cheapest retailer and at this time.... That means slave labour

I would like to avoid giving money to Thai corporation CP but I'd have to give up eating things as they have a stranglehold on the Thai food trade which has pushed many small suppliers out of the 7/11's

Not to mention the same group owns the true company group as well

[Shaunduhpostman]

Much support and good luck to Andy! I reckon he was certainly aware of what he was getting into taking these guys on. I pray that he will be OK and that justice in some form or other might be served regarding the Fruit Company and their illegal activities.

[spidermike007]

Link to an article in the Guardian last year:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/itf-thailand-government-drop-andy-hall-defamation-trial

best excerpt from the article:

ITF's acting general secretary, Steve Cotton, said Hall should be "praised, not prosecuted" for his exposé on working conditions in the fruit company and added: "Thailand's attorney general must act now to disallow this case, which is an example of blatant victimisation of someone for no greater crime than telling an unacceptable truth."

[lavender19]

I guess National fruit has decided to go for double loss of face. Which is pretty common here.

That's because most of them are a bunch of two faced ******

[tbthailand]

So why don't the EU company's that buy their product just stop buying, and send a message that Thai company's understand, MONEY.............

Why don't the NGO'S name and shame those EU company's that are still buying the product?

The current government is well a wear of the situation and it's declining human rights tier 3 classification and has chosen not to do anything about it.

Why was this not thrown out of court and the company call in to explain itself?

So much for "outstanding" job by the PM.

He gave himself the atrial 44 powers as divine hero of the country that includes the judicial system but only uses it when it serves his purpose.

again "outstanding"

C'mon all you defenders of this PM, spin that if ya can.

It would be very interesting to know who are thr directors and who has financial interests in this company. It's doesn't take a genius to guess.

Well, here is a link to Andy Hall's blog where he identifies the owners

Natural Fruit’s owners are in Democrat Party’s General Secretary Chalermchai Sri-on’s family.

[TimmyT]

FINNISH civil society organization?!

who the hell they think they are to be involved in politics in Thailand?! why do they think it's normal to impose there values to other country?!

this so called British "activist" should be jailed for years.

keep your sick left liberal values for yourself

Sure, a court has to apply laws, but that doesn't mean everybody has to agree with those laws.

by applying for a Thai visa any foreigner (except the one with diplomatic immunity) accepts an obligation to obey laws of Thailand. and should be punished accordingly.

this is none of foreigners business if the law is good or bad. it's a business of Thai citizen only.

if you don't want to agree with Thai laws - you can do it at your homeland.

Edited August 25, 2015 by TimmyT

[metisdead]

Nonsense posts and replies have been removed.

[tbthailand]

the resident fascist has arrived...

[mikemac]

Had to laugh when I read post #39, then the post before it. Bad timing tb !

[dominique355]

Could you see a major company in the West suing anyone

because they say the product is crap,or trading methods,

or how they treat their workers,if true.

regards Worgeordie

Do you mean like the British Chiropractic Association sued Simon Singh? Yes, yes indeed, I could imagine that, since it happened. As have MANY similar ones, but BCA was notable for many reasons. British courts in particular are full of these disgusting suits, but few countries can hold their heads up on it.

There are lots of problems with this string of vindictive lawsuits against Andy Hall but you've found about the only one that is not supported factually. The obvious (to me) problem with the Hall suits is that they are criminal, and thus prosecuted by the state and thus, in truth, by the government - and that they provide not damages to Natural Fruit if it turns out that company was libelled, but prison time.

​National Fruit should be deeply embarrassed if even one of these allegations is true. And none of us would be surprised if most are true. Most intelligent companies would want this to be kept as quiet as possible. Not these goons.

Just a reminder of the reality here. A defamation suit (and judgement) have nothing to do with what is "true". If EVERY fact in Hall's report is completely factual and presents truth, it is of little interest to the case, and then only in mitigation if Hall is found guilty of defamation.

This is true of pretty well every country's courts in the world. "Truth as a complete defence" is uniquely American. How much truth is considered can vary, but there's nowhere but the US it is even considered as a full defence.

I'm a huge believer in the court of public opinion, and your post isn't wrong - but it's irrelevant to Hall's current predicament.

Not really.

This is a unique situation in the Thai legal system where defamation is an official crime under the Penal Code, not just a civil case between parties. Criminal defamation in Thailand, however, has nothing to do with the truth, that's correct. A perceived "loss of face" is sufficient, even if the accusations of the defendant are 100% true. In other words, if you call a crook a crook, he can sue you.

I am not aware of any other country in the world having such laws.

The court has actually no choice here but apply the law. It is up to the legislative to amend the situation.

It is a situation similar to 112.

[aussieinthailand]

FINNISH civil society organization?!

who the hell they think they are to be involved in politics in Thailand?! why do they think it's normal to impose there values to other country?!

this so called British "activist" should be jailed for years.

keep your sick left liberal values for yourself

Sure, a court has to apply laws, but that doesn't mean everybody has to agree with those laws.

by applying for a Thai visa any foreigner (except the one with diplomatic immunity) accepts an obligation to obey laws of Thailand. and should be punished accordingly.

this is none of foreigners business if the law is good or bad. it's a business of Thai citizen only.

if you don't want to agree with Thai laws - you can do it at your homeland.

So TimmyT, Have you seen the article? IF SO, Did you see the bit about the conditions the workers are under, the child labor and the illegal fees charged to workers? ALL of which is illegal under Thai law, But you instead of going after the company that is breaking the laws, breaking human rights laws to which Thailand is a signatory and has ratified, and bringing DISGRACE to the country with its deeds, not a single word, but you go after the whistle blower.

Do you have shears in the company?

BTW seems you have a problem with foreigner's, but you don't have a problem with their money huh.

And if the EU and US stopped buying from this company you would still have a problem with that huh...

And Yeah mate the customer can set conditions on the product they wish to purchase, or they simply wont buy, welcome to the 21st century.

AMAZING THAILAND.

[BirdsandBooze]

Andy Hall is seen by the authorities as a thorn in their side. His involvement also in the Koh Tao case isn't welcomed by the them. Any opportunity to do him damage will be taken.

[spidermike007]

Could you see a major company in the West suing anyone

because they say the product is crap,or trading methods,

or how they treat their workers,if true.

regards Worgeordie

Do you mean like the British Chiropractic Association sued Simon Singh? Yes, yes indeed, I could imagine that, since it happened. As have MANY similar ones, but BCA was notable for many reasons. British courts in particular are full of these disgusting suits, but few countries can hold their heads up on it.

There are lots of problems with this string of vindictive lawsuits against Andy Hall but you've found about the only one that is not supported factually. The obvious (to me) problem with the Hall suits is that they are criminal, and thus prosecuted by the state and thus, in truth, by the government - and that they provide not damages to Natural Fruit if it turns out that company was libelled, but prison time.

​National Fruit should be deeply embarrassed if even one of these allegations is true. And none of us would be surprised if most are true. Most intelligent companies would want this to be kept as quiet as possible. Not these goons.

Just a reminder of the reality here. A defamation suit (and judgement) have nothing to do with what is "true". If EVERY fact in Hall's report is completely factual and presents truth, it is of little interest to the case, and then only in mitigation if Hall is found guilty of defamation.

This is true of pretty well every country's courts in the world. "Truth as a complete defence" is uniquely American. How much truth is considered can vary, but there's nowhere but the US it is even considered as a full defence.

I'm a huge believer in the court of public opinion, and your post isn't wrong - but it's irrelevant to Hall's current predicament.

Not really.

This is a unique situation in the Thai legal system where defamation is an official crime under the Penal Code, not just a civil case between parties. Criminal defamation in Thailand, however, has nothing to do with the truth, that's correct. A perceived "loss of face" is sufficient, even if the accusations of the defendant are 100% true. In other words, if you call a crook a crook, he can sue you.

I am not aware of any other country in the world having such laws.

The court has actually no choice here but apply the law. It is up to the legislative to amend the situation.

It is a situation similar to 112.

In other words, absolute and unadulterated cowardice.

[FBlue72]

http://www.naturalfruit.co.th/

EDIT incorrect info

Meanwhile, why not give them a ... fax

179/12 Moo. 11 T.Nhongtatam A.Pranburi Prachuapkirikhan Province Thailand 77120
Tel: <removed as per forum rules>
Fax: +66(0) 3262-3257, +66(0) 3262-2704
Website: www.naturalfruit.co.th
E-mail <removed as per forum rules>

Edited August 25, 2015 by FBlue72

[taony]

When i opened that page, it says "taste the future " and is dated 2013.

What does this company sell and where? I'll do my best not to give them my money and try to convince as many people i can not to as well.

[speedtripler]

When i opened that page, it says "taste the future " and is dated 2013.

What does this company sell and where? I'll do my best not to give them my money and try to convince as many people i can not to as well.

Probably everything in big c and lotus that contains pineapples, you might have to grow your own food if you want to avoid some of the cartels here..

[katana]

Could you see a major company in the West suing anyone

because they say the product is crap,or trading methods,

or how they treat their workers,if true.

regards Worgeordie

Do you mean like the British Chiropractic Association sued Simon Singh? Yes, yes indeed, I could imagine that, since it happened. As have MANY similar ones, but BCA was notable for many reasons. British courts in particular are full of these disgusting suits, but few countries can hold their heads up on it.

There are lots of problems with this string of vindictive lawsuits against Andy Hall but you've found about the only one that is not supported factually. The obvious (to me) problem with the Hall suits is that they are criminal, and thus prosecuted by the state and thus, in truth, by the government - and that they provide not damages to Natural Fruit if it turns out that company was libelled, but prison time.

​National Fruit should be deeply embarrassed if even one of these allegations is true. And none of us would be surprised if most are true. Most intelligent companies would want this to be kept as quiet as possible. Not these goons.

Just a reminder of the reality here. A defamation suit (and judgement) have nothing to do with what is "true". If EVERY fact in Hall's report is completely factual and presents truth, it is of little interest to the case, and then only in mitigation if Hall is found guilty of defamation.

This is true of pretty well every country's courts in the world. "Truth as a complete defence" is uniquely American. How much truth is considered can vary, but there's nowhere but the US it is even considered as a full defence.

I'm a huge believer in the court of public opinion, and your post isn't wrong - but it's irrelevant to Hall's current predicament.

I don't think that's correct.

eg from Wikipedia for English law:

"...English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals; note that under English law companies are legal persons, and may bring suit for defamation) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e., whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e., whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest)..."

"...A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves that the statement was true...."

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

PS Singh had the libel case against him dismissed on appeal under the defence that his article was fair comment.

Edited August 25, 2015 by katana

[Thai at Heart]

Sure, a court has to apply laws, but that doesn't mean everybody has to agree with those laws.

Going undercover into an organization can be a dangerous task, and the whistleblower needs protection if his/her revealings are based on facts, not the organization.

Protection from defamation should be regarded as a human right and not be applied to organizations.

The whole concept of "juristic persons" in laws is questionable imho.

I worked in an industry that implemented it's own SRP globally and every supplier had to conform. We implemented it in North East Thailand 15 years ago, to the extent of proving that every farmers children went to school.

We produced thousands of page of school attendance for every child from 25000 farming families to prove it.

Where there is will, there is a way. The buying companies should impose this type of SRP on their suppliers in Thailand. No conformity, no sale.

This is why allowing foreign businesses into Thailand into the protected businesses would clean up the abuse of labour very fast.

The price would go up a little but the buyers would be able to play the Foreign companies off against domestic. Domestic companies would have to improve.

Keep the suppliers completely Thai and it takes forever to break down the wrongdoing.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Thai at Heart

[Thai at Heart]

I don't understand why the owners of Natural Fruit have not been charged with the findings of

this report

The ubiquitous "Brown Envelopes" are most likely is why they have not been charged....and also probably why/how they secured the indictment.

I get it that journalists are often sensationalist, and a large percentage are bleeding-heart liberals as well, but to go crying about a nay-sayer will just attract attention.

Natural Fruit should, if innocent, invite any and all journalists to inspect anything they have, with ZERO restrictions....Let them come in undercover if they want.

It's not like they are processing plutonium or some other 'State Secret' product.

If they are innocent it would come to light quite quickly & Andy Hall would be shown up as a fraud and be marginalized.

As it is, I'll never touch one of their products ever again.

The problem is, nobody knows their pineapple or whatever might have been supplied by a company who use slave labour

People like tescos are selling the pineapples and related products and they are responsible also but they will buy from the cheapest retailer and at this time.... That means slave labour

I would like to avoid giving money to Thai corporation CP but I'd have to give up eating things as they have a stranglehold on the Thai food trade which has pushed many small suppliers out of the 7/11's

Not to mention the same group owns the true company group as well

Tesco is not the issue. They have SRP requirements. But from whom can they buy in Thailand as a trusted honest broker? The market is 99% in the hands of Thais.

Dole has a joint venture canning pineapples in Thailand. Do you think they don't comply to Doles SRP?

Edited August 25, 2015 by Thai at Heart

[speedtripler]

I don't understand why the owners of Natural Fruit have not been charged with the findings of

this report

The ubiquitous "Brown Envelopes" are most likely is why they have not been charged....and also probably why/how they secured the indictment.

I get it that journalists are often sensationalist, and a large percentage are bleeding-heart liberals as well, but to go crying about a nay-sayer will just attract attention.

Natural Fruit should, if innocent, invite any and all journalists to inspect anything they have, with ZERO restrictions....Let them come in undercover if they want.

It's not like they are processing plutonium or some other 'State Secret' product.

If they are innocent it would come to light quite quickly & Andy Hall would be shown up as a fraud and be marginalized.

As it is, I'll never touch one of their products ever again.

The problem is, nobody knows their pineapple or whatever might have been supplied by a company who use slave labour

People like tescos are selling the pineapples and related products and they are responsible also but they will buy from the cheapest retailer and at this time.... That means slave labour

I would like to avoid giving money to Thai corporation CP but I'd have to give up eating things as they have a stranglehold on the Thai food trade which has pushed many small suppliers out of the 7/11's

Not to mention the same group owns the true company group as well

Tesco is not the issue. They have SRP requirements. But from whom can they buy in Thailand as a trusted honest broker? The market is 99% in the hands of Thais.

Dole has a joint venture canning pineapples in Thailand. Do you think they don't comply to Doles SRP?

The joint venture would be Thai run I presume, so if it's beneficial for the elite Thai owners to exploit 3rd world labour, I dont see any reason why not..

The big construction projects all use the impoverished labour market so why not have them cultivate pineapples too?

[MaiChai]

So many injustices in Thailand. Unfortunately money controls everything.

[NongKhaiKid]

A Thai govt spokesperson responded,

" Where's Finland ? " Anybody ?

[Thai at Heart]

I don't understand why the owners of Natural Fruit have not been charged with the findings of

this report

The ubiquitous "Brown Envelopes" are most likely is why they have not been charged....and also probably why/how they secured the indictment.

I get it that journalists are often sensationalist, and a large percentage are bleeding-heart liberals as well, but to go crying about a nay-sayer will just attract attention.

Natural Fruit should, if innocent, invite any and all journalists to inspect anything they have, with ZERO restrictions....Let them come in undercover if they want.

It's not like they are processing plutonium or some other 'State Secret' product.

If they are innocent it would come to light quite quickly & Andy Hall would be shown up as a fraud and be marginalized.

As it is, I'll never touch one of their products ever again.

The problem is, nobody knows their pineapple or whatever might have been supplied by a company who use slave labour

People like tescos are selling the pineapples and related products and they are responsible also but they will buy from the cheapest retailer and at this time.... That means slave labour

I would like to avoid giving money to Thai corporation CP but I'd have to give up eating things as they have a stranglehold on the Thai food trade which has pushed many small suppliers out of the 7/11's

Not to mention the same group owns the true company group as well

Tesco is not the issue. They have SRP requirements. But from whom can they buy in Thailand as a trusted honest broker? The market is 99% in the hands of Thais.

Dole has a joint venture canning pineapples in Thailand. Do you think they don't comply to Doles SRP?

The joint venture would be Thai run I presume, so if it's beneficial for the elite Thai owners to exploit 3rd world labour, I dont see any reason why not..

The big construction projects all use the impoverished labour market so why not have them cultivate pineapples too?

They have to comply with the Thai law at least. The accusation against this company is that they don't even comply with that.

Dole would likely have some expat management in conjunction with local. It's 49% their business and have to answer to their shareholders.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Thai at Heart

[wandasloan]

I don't think that's correct.

And yet it is. All courts I know of allow the defence to bring up truth - I'm sure Andy Hall will use that, for example - but two things

- In almost no court is the truth a final defence against a defamation suit, allowing full acquittal/dismissal, including England no matter what Wikipedia says. England is a lousy choice to bring up anyway; it has one of the harshest and most difficult defamation laws anywhere in the free world, and it is HUGELY expensive and difficult to win a defamation case. Companies often choose England to launch defamation suits because the law is so very, very one-sided against freedom of speech. See how many newspapers there pay to settle, rather than even attempt to fight. If you care, look up "Libel Tourism".

In Thailand, truth is almost a piffle, no question. Far worse than England, even. But other countries also do not generally accept truth as an absolute defence.

- In England and most places where truth IS allowed to be introduced (including Thailand), it is up to the accused to prove they are not lying. It is NOT up to those suing him to prove that he is. In the US, it is up to the accuser to prove the defendant was lying WITH (additionally) intent to defame - otherwise the defendant wins. Australia is the only country I know that is quite close to this.

- One of the reasons Andy Hall is in trouble here, is that he will find it either very difficult or actually impossible to prove the truth of certain facts in his report which the company alleges are harmful and defamatory. I'm not saying at all that they aren't true. I'm saying it will up to him to PROVE in court that they are true, and there is no onus or responsibility on Natural Fruit to show they are false. That's a serious problem for any defamation defendant.

I don't think that's correct.

eg from Wikipedia for English law:

"...English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals; note that under English law companies are legal persons, and may bring suit for defamation) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e., whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e., whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest)..."

"...A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves that the statement was true...."

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

PS Singh had the libel case against him dismissed on appeal under the defence that his article was fair comment.

The claim was that only in Thailand would a company (Natural Fruit) or powerful group sue an individual. That is a ridiculous claim. There are hundreds of others. Companies and powerful groups sue individuals all the time, in every civilised country.

I mentioned Singh because it was a seminal case that anyone arguing in this thread should be familiar with. A powerful group sued an individual, and it wasn't in Thailand.

[canuckamuck]

Thailand wants to eliminate corruption, yet they maintain a legal system which is a safe haven for successful criminals. They won't change it because they all prefer a system where they cannot be called out for misdeeds. They all need this type of system. Ethics are not part of the mindset. If you can get away with it, it is good business.

This is also the reason why they cannot maintain a political system without a do over every several years.

Perhaps the market will eventually force them to become more humane, or perhaps they spend there energy on hiding it better.

[spidermike007]

A Thai govt spokesperson responded,

" Where's Finland ? " Anybody ?

Is there an outside world? I have never been to any of these countries, therefore I do not believe they exist. And besides we never studied anything about these countries in school, therefore we must be the most important country. And the way we do things is the right way.

[Baerboxer]

I don't understand why the owners of Natural Fruit have not been charged with the findings of

this report

The ubiquitous "Brown Envelopes" are most likely is why they have not been charged....and also probably why/how they secured the indictment.

I get it that journalists are often sensationalist, and a large percentage are bleeding-heart liberals as well, but to go crying about a nay-sayer will just attract attention.

Natural Fruit should, if innocent, invite any and all journalists to inspect anything they have, with ZERO restrictions....Let them come in undercover if they want.

It's not like they are processing plutonium or some other 'State Secret' product.

If they are innocent it would come to light quite quickly & Andy Hall would be shown up as a fraud and be marginalized.

As it is, I'll never touch one of their products ever again.

The problem is, nobody knows their pineapple or whatever might have been supplied by a company who use slave labour

People like tescos are selling the pineapples and related products and they are responsible also but they will buy from the cheapest retailer and at this time.... That means slave labour

I would like to avoid giving money to Thai corporation CP but I'd have to give up eating things as they have a stranglehold on the Thai food trade which has pushed many small suppliers out of the 7/11's

Not to mention the same group owns the true company group as well

Tesco is not the issue. They have SRP requirements. But from whom can they buy in Thailand as a trusted honest broker? The market is 99% in the hands of Thais.

Dole has a joint venture canning pineapples in Thailand. Do you think they don't comply to Doles SRP?

Tesco - that bastion of corporate social responsibility and ethical sourcing. So well known for it, they even get mentioned by government and professional bodies.

Perhaps you should research the reality of how Tesco, and many other supermarkets and large retailers source, select and then treat their suppliers.

[mikemac]

When i opened that page, it says "taste the future " and is dated 2013.

What does this company sell and where? I'll do my best not to give them my money and try to convince as many people i can not to as well.

Probably everything in big c and lotus that contains pineapples, you might have to grow your own food if you want to avoid some of the cartels here..

There is a pineapple cartel ?

[tbthailand]

Had to laugh when I read post #39, then the post before it. Bad timing tb !

it would seem that I was right...