Court To Weigh Gold Mine’s Defamation Case Against Thai PBS

[webfact]

Court To Weigh Gold Mine’s Defamation Case Against Thai PBS

By Sasiwan Mokkhasen, Staff Reporter -

 

Top: An episode of Thai PBS program ‘Citizen Journalist’ which aired Sept. 1, 2015, drew a defamation complaint against the broadcaster and its reporter for saying their mine contaminated a river in Loei province.

 

BANGKOK — Wirada Saelim will learn Wednesday whether a 50 million baht defamation suit brought against her and a news agency by a gold mining company will go forward.

 

The 25-year-old reporter was named as the first defendant along with Thai Public Broadcasting Service and three directors of the public television channel in the criminal suit filed late last year by Tungkum Ltd.

 

Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/crimecourtscalamity/courts/2016/11/15/court-weigh-gold-mines-defamation-case-thai-pbs/

 

-- © Copyright Khaosod English 2016-11-16

[JoePai]

 

[elgordo38]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Wirada Saelim will learn Wednesday whether a 50 million baht defamation suit brought against her and a news agency by a gold mining company will go forward.

If this gold mine is foreign owned it could be a gold mine for the government. These mining companies on foreign soil are turning into a piggy bank for the financially strapped if not bankrupt host country. Chad is suing/fining Exxon for 64 Billion dollars for not declaring their total profits. It seems that the fine is about 90 times the original so called fudged figures. Other foreign companies there have already settled. Other countries running out of monetary options are eyeing this. Financial terrorism is on the horizon for companies that have entered dubious foreign countries and sunk a pile of dough into them. To be fair I would not put it past some of these companies to lie thinking that they are dealing with a bunch of fractured stupid entities but on the other hand Greed has the upper hand. Their land their rules their courts. 

[webfact]

Court Dismisses Defamation Suit Against Thai PPS, Reporter

By Sasiwan Mokkhasen, Staff Reporter -

 

Top: An episode of Thai PBS program ‘Citizen Reporters’ which aired Sept. 1, 2015, drew a defamation complaint against the broadcaster and its reporter for saying their mine contaminated a river in Loei province.

 

BANGKOK — A court Wednesday dismissed a defamation claim against the Thai Public Broadcasting Service and four media professionals for broadcasting the report on the environmental impact of a gold mine.

 

Refuting Tungkum Ltd.’s argument that its mine had no impact on the environment, the Criminal Court was convinced by governmental findings submitted by Thai PBS that found the Huay River in Loei province was badly polluted and dismissed the case.

 

Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/2016/11/16/court-dismisses-defamation-suit-thai-pbs-reporter/

 

-- © Copyright Khaosod English 2016-11-16

[JoePai]

Good - sense prevailed   

[Jonmarleesco]

'In its complaint, the gold-mining company said the Huay River was free of pollution and doesn’t even run past its mine.' Two statements of fact that the mining company can presumably prove ... or not. If not, than their questionable suit becomes even more questionable.

[lvr181]

22 minutes ago, Jonmarleesco said:

'In its complaint, the gold-mining company said the Huay River was free of pollution and doesn’t even run past its mine.' Two statements of fact that the mining company can presumably prove ... or not. If not, than their questionable suit becomes even more questionable.

 

It is all about money and saving face.

[Acharn]

It's all about intimidating or even destroying financially limited victims. The cost of defending a defamation suit is devastating. The defense against a charge of defamation is to show the truth of what you said/wrote/published, as the court demonstrated here. So you prevail in court, but you've still spent anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of baht. U.S. corporations use it all the time against critics.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Acharn

[Retiredandhappyhere]

When a defamation charge fails in court, the plaintiff should be forced to pay all the costs involved.  Now that the courts seem to be coming up with more logical conclusions and verdicts, this might persuade potential plaintiffs to think twice about making frivolous complaints. Unfortunately, in Thailand, having told the truth is often no defence against a defamation charge, as Andy Hall could testify.

[Jonmarleesco]

My God, what with the court dismissing the case against Andy Hall, now this, common sense really does seem to be on the rise in the Thai legal world.

[Jonmarleesco]

3 hours ago, Acharn said:

It's all about intimidating or even destroying financially limited victims. The cost of defending a defamation suit is devastating. The defense against a charge of defamation is to show the truth of what you said/wrote/published, as the court demonstrated here. So you prevail in court, but you've still spent anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of baht. U.S. corporations use it all the time against critics.

Except the Thai interpretation of defamation is like no other country's.

[timewilltell]

8 hours ago, Acharn said:

It's all about intimidating or even destroying financially limited victims. The cost of defending a defamation suit is devastating. The defense against a charge of defamation is to show the truth of what you said/wrote/published, as the court demonstrated here. So you prevail in court, but you've still spent anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of baht. U.S. corporations use it all the time against critics.

 

Yes but in the US and most of the civilised world you are awarded costs.  Here you get nothing apart from MAYBE a contribution of 10,000 baht towards your lawyer's costs which will run into many hundreds of thousands of baht, and that is if you win. If your are a plaintiff and win you may not even get your court fee back .  Personal experience.  Given lack of precendent and that decisions are based almost entirely on the ideas of the judge whether or not presented in evidence you end up with a system where no one knows what the law is unless a case is decided at supreme court level, so lawyers are routinely criticised for not knowing the law and whilst the standards of professionalism are sometimes less than you might expect the aspect of lack of certainty is a real and difficult one.

[Basil B]

I am assuming that a lot of water is used is used in the gold extraction and water is taken from a near by source and some if not all returned to a near by stream or river, it will probable have a lot of sediment and over contaminates in it, therefore the claims are probably correct.

 

[Basil B]

14 hours ago, webfact said:

the Criminal Court was convinced by governmental findings submitted by Thai PBS that found the Huay River in Loei province was badly polluted and dismissed the case.

 

Hope they prosecute the mine operators and owners.

[Acharn]

19 hours ago, Jonmarleesco said:

Except the Thai interpretation of defamation is like no other country's.

I am not a lawyer, much less a scholar of international law, so I cannot dispute you, but there are some very nasty countries out there, among the **stans.

[SaintLouisBlues]

4 minutes ago, Acharn said:

I am not a lawyer, much less a scholar of international law, so I cannot dispute you, but there are some very nasty countries out there, among the **stans.

As a general rule of thumb, if the name of a country ends in "-stan" it is either currently, or well on its way to becoming, a "failed state"

[Acharn]

13 hours ago, timewilltell said:

 

Yes but in the US and most of the civilised world you are awarded costs.  Here you get nothing apart from MAYBE a contribution of 10,000 baht towards your lawyer's costs which will run into many hundreds of thousands of baht, and that is if you win. If your are a plaintiff and win you may not even get your court fee back .  Personal experience.  Given lack of precendent and that decisions are based almost entirely on the ideas of the judge whether or not presented in evidence you end up with a system where no one knows what the law is unless a case is decided at supreme court level, so lawyers are routinely criticised for not knowing the law and whilst the standards of professionalism are sometimes less than you might expect the aspect of lack of certainty is a real and difficult one.

That may be so. I based my opinion on a small book called Modern Thai Monarchy and Cultural Politics, which is about "The acquittal of Sulak Sivaraksa on the charge of lese majeste in Siam 1995 and its consequences." I found the collection of essays interesting, but the actual case was back in 1993, and I'm pretty sure he would not have won if Gen. Suchinda hadn't lost power in Black May. Anyway, aside from the fact I know that defamation is considered a criminal offence I really don't know much about it. Obviously, both laws can be abused to punish political or even personal enemies. Lese Majeste, even back then, was very vaguely defined and subject to the whim of the judges.