Somchai, police chiefs acquitted over 2008 siege response

[webfact]

Somchai, police chiefs acquitted over 2008 siege response

By Kasamakorn Chanwanpen 
The Nation

 

 

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed charges against former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat, his deputy and former police officials regarding the dispersal of a yellow-shirt protest in 2008.

The court’s Criminal Division on Political Office Holders ruled that the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) siege of the Parliament compound, undertaken to impede a Cabinet policy announcement, had not been non-violent since some protesters carried offensive weapons.

 

As a result, the countering action ordered by then-police chief Pol Gen Patcharawat Wongsuwan and then-metropolitan police chief Pol Lt Gen Suchart Muankaew was legitimate, ensuring the security of people and state property, the court said.

 

It ruled that Somchai and the police chiefs were unaware of any possible danger posed by the use of teargas. Nor was there any evidence to show they intended to injure the demonstrators.

 

The court said it could not be concluded that the defendants were negligent or guilty of malfeasance in their duties, as alleged by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

 

Then-deputy premier Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh was also acquitted on all charges because he had resigned from the post that morning, before the dispersal took place which resulted in a number of casualties.

 

PAD members were upset with the ruling, some shouting “murderers” at the defendants as they left the courtroom.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30322543

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-08-02

[webfact]

Case thrown out against former Thai PM Somchai in rare win for anti-junta camp

 

Former Thai prime minister Somchai Wongsawat greets supporters as he arrives at the Supreme Court in Bangkok, Thailand, August 2, 2017. REUTERS/Aukkarapon Niyomyat

 

BANGKOK (Reuters) - A Thai court on Wednesday dismissed a case against former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat, a brother-in-law of deposed former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, in a rare victory for the pro-Thaksin, anti-junta movement.

 

Somchai, along with then-deputy prime minister Chavalit Yongchaiyuth, was accused of abuse of power over a deadly crackdown on demonstrators in 2008.

 

Two people died and hundreds were wounded when police used tear gas to clear anti-government "yellow shirt" protesters who had parliament in Bangkok.

 

"Even though there were people who were injured and killed, in that event it was difficult for police to know that the tear gas would cause injuries and death in that manner," the court said in a statement released after the verdict.

 

His opponents accused Somchai of being Thaksin's puppet.

 

Thaksin, who lives abroad to avoid a jail sentence handed down for graft in 2008, was ousted in a 2006 coup but remains a major influence over Thai politics.

 

The Shinawatra family and their political allies are at the heart of a political conflict that has divided Thailand for more than a decade.

 

The crisis pits former telecommunications tycoon Thaksin, and his legions of supporters, against the Bangkok-based elite which sees him as a threat to the old royalist-military establishment.

 

Members of the Shinawatra family have accused their opponents of political persecution.

 

The 2008 protest by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) group, an anti-Thaksin movement whose street action led ultimately to the 2006 coup against Thaksin, was among the worst political crises in recent Thai history.

 

In October that year, protesters surrounded parliament forcing Somchai to escape over a back fence after delivering a policy address.

 

Police dispersed protesters with volleys of tear gas. At least 400 were wounded.

 

Wednesday's ruling upset former members of the now-defunct PAD. Some stood outside the court after the ruling and shouted: "Murder!".

 

The military took power in Thailand in a 2014 coup, ousting Thaksin's sister, prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

 

(Reporting by Aukkarapon Niyomyat; Additional reporting by Amy Sawitta Lefevre and Panarat Thepgumpanat; Writing by Amy Sawitta Lefevre; Editing by Nick Macfie)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-08-02

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

The correct decision.

 

Well done to the Supreme Court. 

So now you think its a right decision (i think so too actually) but when they rule against yours will you still accept their rulings.

[ezzra]

Is there anyone out there who expected  a different outcome? really?....

 

[Tatsujin]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

That too, but there really was not excessive violence or anything. Yes things went wrong because of bad equipment. 

Bad equipment? Or misuse?

[robblok]

Just now, Tatsujin said:

Bad equipment? Or misuse?

I read somewhere but can't remember where that these were faulty Chinese teargas grenades. The person who bought them should be held responsible.  But still .. the police were just doing their job.. as a protester you take certain risks.

[Moonmoon]

Good and Fair ruling

[Denim]

Absolutely no surprise. 

 

Having let Abhisit and Suthep walk when the body count was a lot higher under their administration , they could hardly have come to any other decision without there being an uproar.

 

 

[wakeupplease]

A real shame you cannot watch the video I did last night, it would change a lot of views if your a J/S maybe not with some as facts would get twisted as usual. Good to see this result hope for the sake of the country the next one is the same.

[darksidedog]

I read that Somchai thanked the court and said he was grateful there was still justice in the country. We shall see if that is indeed the case after Yingluck gets her verdict.

 

[metisdead]

Off topic trolling posts and replies have been removed. 

[klauskunkel]

It's not about a victory for "yellow" or "red", it's about Deputy PM Prawit's brother, PolGen Pratcharawat, who managed to be embroiled in this mess and co-accused. Can't really find him guilty... which is lucky for the others.

[Eric Loh]

I read that the yellows were out in numbers and were hostile forcing the defendants to take a detour entrance. So not much different from the reds.  

[Baerboxer]

19 hours ago, Denim said:

Absolutely no surprise. 

 

Having let Abhisit and Suthep walk when the body count was a lot higher under their administration , they could hardly have come to any other decision without there being an uproar.

 

 

 

Only there was no evidence against Abhisit and Suthep, was there? Only the idea to charge them to push them towards supporting the "amnesty for all" idea.

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

It's not about a victory for "yellow" or "red", it's about Deputy PM Prawit's brother, PolGen Pratcharawat, who managed to be embroiled in this mess and co-accused. Can't really find him guilty... which is lucky for the others.

 

To be fair though, there wasn't really any evidence that they should be convicted.

 

The police fired tear gas. The cheap Chinese tear gas canisters exploded and caused the deaths and injuries. The supplier and people responsible for the procurement ought to have been investigated. Cheap, shoddy, below specification etc etc.

 

 

[Baerboxer]

On 8/2/2017 at 1:45 PM, robblok said:

So now you think its a right decision (i think so too actually) but when they rule against yours will you still accept their rulings.

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for the answer Rob!

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

To be fair though, there wasn't really any evidence that they should be convicted.

To be fair there was probable cause for arrest and reasonable conviction.

 

They were indicted for murder by DSI in connection with the military crackdown on mass opposition protests in Bangkok.  Prosecutors accused Abhisit and Suthep of issuing orders that resulted in murder and attempted murder by the security forces. A criminal court and appeals court then ruled that criminal court did not have jurisdiction to hear the cases because Abhisit and Suthep were holders of public office at the time and acting under an emergency decree that Abhisit issued. So that was no a matter of evidence but a technical legality.

 

It remained then for the  NAAC then to refer the cases to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions for abuse of power and political malfeasance for which the punishment would only be post de facto impeachment - a political punishment. In December 2015 NAAC dismissed charges of malfeasance and impeachment because the specific charges for failure to review the use of military force, dereliction of duty and intentionally ordering the killing of innocents, resulting in the loss of lives and assets, had no basis in fact.

 

Even though Suthep and Army chief General Anupong Paochinda were found responsible for ordering police, military and civil officers to use force to disperse rallies by red-shirt protesters that resulted in many deaths. Suthep even testified that he ordered that protesters be fired upon, but allegedly only at their feet with no intent of murder. So there was evidence for conviction but dismissed essentially as "unhealthy" for the court to rule otherwise? 

[candide]

39 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

To be fair there was probable cause for arrest and reasonable conviction.

 

They were indicted for murder by DSI in connection with the military crackdown on mass opposition protests in Bangkok.  Prosecutors accused Abhisit and Suthep of issuing orders that resulted in murder and attempted murder by the security forces. A criminal court and appeals court then ruled that criminal court did not have jurisdiction to hear the cases because Abhisit and Suthep were holders of public office at the time and acting under an emergency decree that Abhisit issued. So that was no a matter of evidence but a technical legality.

 

It remained then for the  NAAC then to refer the cases to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions for abuse of power and political malfeasance for which the punishment would only be post de facto impeachment - a political punishment. In December 2015 NAAC dismissed charges of malfeasance and impeachment because the specific charges for failure to review the use of military force, dereliction of duty and intentionally ordering the killing of innocents, resulting in the loss of lives and assets, had no basis in fact.

 

Even though Suthep and Army chief General Anupong Paochinda were found responsible for ordering police, military and civil officers to use force to disperse rallies by red-shirt protesters that resulted in many deaths. Suthep even testified that he ordered that protesters be fired upon, but allegedly only at their feet with no intent of murder. So there was evidence for conviction but dismissed essentially as "unhealthy" for the court to rule otherwise? 

Anyone surprised about decisions of the "neutral" NACC?