Jump to content

Court hits Democrat with jail term in defamation case


webfact

Recommended Posts

Court hits Democrat with jail term in defamation case

Kesinee Tangkhiew,
Sakda Samerphop
The Nation

 

30296474-01_big.jpg

 

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court yesterday slapped Democrat Party spokesperson Chawanon Intarakomalyasut with a two-year suspended jail term and a fine of Bt100,000 in a defamation lawsuit filed by former foreign minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul.

 

The Criminal Court, meanwhile, sentenced two demonstrators to three and half years in jail for joining a protest led by United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) in 2009. They were charged with unlawful assembly and invading state property. 

 

Full story: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Court-hits-Democrat-with-jail-term-in-defamation-c-30296474.html

 
thenation_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright The Nation 2016-09-29

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, edwinchester said:

Quote from the article.

"However, since there were no witnesses to confirm their guilt, the court reduced the jail sentence from three and a half years to two years and four months."

 

So, since we don't know if you are guilty, you will only get 2 years and 4 months?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rkidlad said:

No, he didn't get a jail term. 

 

Remember, you farangs. You must respect the law here. 

Correct Chawanons jail term was suspended. But posts 2 & 3 are referring to the two UDD protesters that were sent to jail ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
On 29/09/2016 at 7:31 PM, Redline said:

So, since we don't know if you are guilty, you will only get 2 years and 4 months?

Really? The defendants apparently didn't deny the invasion of state property or unlawful assembly, they denied the intention to incite unrest. From the pictures supplied, it is obvious that was exactly the intention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, halloween said:

Really? The defendants apparently didn't deny the invasion of state property or unlawful assembly, they denied the intention to incite unrest. From the pictures supplied, it is obvious that was exactly the intention.

Well, there were no witnesses, so there ya go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









×
×
  • Create New...