Supreme Court postpones 2008 PAD protest case
Kesinee Taengkeaw
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court Friday postponed an examination of evidence and witnesses relating to the disbanding of a People's Alliance for Democracy protest in 2008.

The court's Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions reasoned that it could not finish examining more than 800 witnesses in time.

The number of witnesses is divided into the 176 listed by the plaintiff, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and the 667 listed by the four defendants, ex-premier Somchai Wongsawat, his ex-deputy General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, former police chief General Patcharawat Wongsuwan, and former metropolitan police chief Lt-General Suchart Muenkaew.

The NACC has alleged the defendants wrongfully disbanded the PAD protest in front of Parliament in October 2008, resulting in two deaths and 471 injuries.

The court set December 16 as the next examination date with no more postponements for the same reason.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Supreme-Court-postpones-2008-PAD-protest-case-30271928.html


-- The Nation 2015-10-30

Here we go again. A case against PAD is 7 years old, while within months they want to hang Yingluck. This is what your PM calls reconciliation, my ass..

This is not the case against the PAD, this seems to a case against Somchai for disbanding those protests.

Here we go again. A case against PAD is 7 years old, while within months they want to hang Yingluck. This is what your PM calls reconciliation, my ass..

This case is against Former PPP prime minister Somchai and his clique

Here we go again. A case against PAD is 7 years old, while within months they want to hang Yingluck. This is what your PM calls reconciliation, my ass..

The way the Courts here conduct trial, all the defendants will be dead or gone by the time they get through the witness testimony. They're looking at about 4-5 years to complete the testimony portion of the trial alone. Amazing because the PAD trial on the occupation of the airports is done. I don't see any favoritism. Yingluck's statute of limitations was about to expire and Prayuth has little control over the court system, even with Article 44.

Just another useless case destined for failure.........but so far it's only been 7 years.......maybe at year 12 there may be progress!!

Here we go again. A case against PAD is 7 years old, while within months they want to hang Yingluck. This is what your PM calls reconciliation, my ass..

The way the Courts here conduct trial, all the defendants will be dead or gone by the time they get through the witness testimony. They're looking at about 4-5 years to complete the testimony portion of the trial alone. Amazing because the PAD trial on the occupation of the airports is done. I don't see any favoritism. Yingluck's statute of limitations was about to expire and Prayuth has little control over the court system, even with Article 44.

Prayuth has little control over the court system, even with Article 44.

No. Under article 44 the NCPO can issue legally binding directives that have constitutional authority. NCPO directives cannot be challenged before the Supreme or Constitutional Courts. In fact the NCPO can legally (according to its Interim Charter) try Yingluck in a military court.

Here we go again. A case against PAD is 7 years old, while within months they want to hang Yingluck. This is what your PM calls reconciliation, my ass..

The way the Courts here conduct trial, all the defendants will be dead or gone by the time they get through the witness testimony. They're looking at about 4-5 years to complete the testimony portion of the trial alone. Amazing because the PAD trial on the occupation of the airports is done. I don't see any favoritism. Yingluck's statute of limitations was about to expire and Prayuth has little control over the court system, even with Article 44.

Look at the case against Samak (another Thaksin crony), indeed he was long dead till the court found him guilty.

Here we go again. A case against PAD is 7 years old, while within months they want to hang Yingluck. This is what your PM calls reconciliation, my ass..

The way the Courts here conduct trial, all the defendants will be dead or gone by the time they get through the witness testimony. They're looking at about 4-5 years to complete the testimony portion of the trial alone. Amazing because the PAD trial on the occupation of the airports is done. I don't see any favoritism. Yingluck's statute of limitations was about to expire and Prayuth has little control over the court system, even with Article 44.

Prayuth has little control over the court system, even with Article 44.

No. Under article 44 the NCPO can issue legally binding directives that have constitutional authority. NCPO directives cannot be challenged before the Supreme or Constitutional Courts. In fact the NCPO can legally (according to its Interim Charter) try Yingluck in a military court.

yes but he didn't do that

Here we go again. A case against PAD is 7 years old, while within months they want to hang Yingluck. This is what your PM calls reconciliation, my ass..

The way the Courts here conduct trial, all the defendants will be dead or gone by the time they get through the witness testimony. They're looking at about 4-5 years to complete the testimony portion of the trial alone. Amazing because the PAD trial on the occupation of the airports is done. I don't see any favoritism. Yingluck's statute of limitations was about to expire and Prayuth has little control over the court system, even with Article 44.

Prayuth has little control over the court system, even with Article 44.

No. Under article 44 the NCPO can issue legally binding directives that have constitutional authority. NCPO directives cannot be challenged before the Supreme or Constitutional Courts. In fact the NCPO can legally (according to its Interim Charter) try Yingluck in a military court.

yes but he didn't do that

No, he saving that power up for his infatuation with Thaksin.

He also has all the guns. Should we also be thankful he not using them on the undesirable peasants? Not yet anyway!

Edited October 30, 201510 yr by Reigntax

I had a shock! From the title I initially understood that it was the NACC against the PAD. But it's not, so everything is normal.

Here we go again. A case against PAD is 7 years old, while within months they want to hang Yingluck. This is what your PM calls reconciliation, my ass..

And how old is the case against Jut the hut and Nat the <deleted>? A couple of years more than this case.

We all know the Thai system, like the Indian one and other third world countries, is long winded, inefficient and inconsistent.

But both sides normally take advantage of it.

Yingluck brought it all on herself by doing nothing except what big brother told her to do.

The expectation should be for justice to be swift, not allowed to be dragged on for ever and a day.

Her trial could be the new standard - quick and actually judged on the facts, not on what your family name, how much money you have or who your brother/dad is.

Here we go again. A case against PAD is 7 years old, while within months they want to hang Yingluck. This is what your PM calls reconciliation, my ass..

This case is against Former PPP prime minister Somchai and his clique

He saw the words case, PAD and 7 years and doesn't seem to have read the words in between. Maybe he has a busy life which doesn't afford him the time to read the whole article!!

What has he got to say about it taking 7 years to bring the case of one of Thaksin's stooges to court now? is he still outraged about it?

Here we go again. A case against PAD is 7 years old, while within months they want to hang Yingluck. This is what your PM calls reconciliation, my ass..

The way the Courts here conduct trial, all the defendants will be dead or gone by the time they get through the witness testimony. They're looking at about 4-5 years to complete the testimony portion of the trial alone. Amazing because the PAD trial on the occupation of the airports is done. I don't see any favoritism. Yingluck's statute of limitations was about to expire and Prayuth has little control over the court system, even with Article 44.

There is no need for Prayuth to "control the court system".They are both on the same team working for the same goals.