CDC: Yingluck can appeal against court’s decision if found guilty

[rooster59]

CDC: Yingluck can appeal against court’s decision if found guilty

Thammarat Thadaphrom

 

BANGKOK, 26th August 2017 (NNT) – Former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra is entitled to lodge an appeal within 30 days of the court delivering its verdict, according to the Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC). 

CDC chairman Meechai Ruchuphan has confirmed that the 2017 constitution allows Yingluck, the defendant in the rice pledging case, to appeal against the Supreme Court’s decision within a 30-day period after the court announces its verdict, adding that she would have to do it herself, meaning she would have to physically be at the court to file a notice of appeal. 

The court, meanwhile, has rescheduled the reading for September 27th at 9 am after Yingluck failed to appear in court on Friday to hear the verdict after her two-year trial in the rice pledging case . 

Meechai went on to say that if the former premier is acquitted of the charges against her, she will be allowed to seek political office. However, if Yingluck is found guilty, she will face a lifetime ban from politics. 

 

 

-- nnt 2017-08-26

[petermik]

Yeah right............the verdict is cut and dried already

[chuang]

........it;s all done..

[leeneeds]

Word of the  long sentences for her,  former  offsider's would have perplexed her emotions,

the doctors note is valid for how long, surely not until the 27th of September, 

Right of an appeal could not have been that comforting for her, 

forfeit her assets or forfeit her freedom, not much of a hard choice.

[4MyEgo]

Without a doubt she will have her lawyers appeal, only to fall on the deaf ears of the court system again, after all, the justice system here is all intertwined, or is it, I mean, there could be no corrupt judges, could there ?

[steven100]

yes ..... the CDC are just looking for the Dubai country code to give her a call  

[TheThaiMe]

Didn't they change the law so that defendants needed to attend the court in person for appeals?

 

If this is true then I very much doubt the will affect YL

[GBW]

10 minutes ago, TheThaiMe said:

Didn't they change the law so that defendants needed to attend the court in person for appeals?

 

If this is true then I very much doubt the will affect YL

YL has to be physically in court as said in the post...

[phuketrichard]

LOL  like there is  a chance she will see her evil ways and return>>>
prehaps she can bring her brother with her

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

4 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Without a doubt she will have her lawyers appeal, only to fall on the deaf ears of the court system again, after all, the justice system here is all intertwined, or is it, I mean, there could be no corrupt judges, could there ?

 

Note from the OP article:

 

Quote

adding that she would have to do it herself, meaning she would have to physically be at the court to file a notice of appeal. 

 

[sjaak327]

"she will face a lifetime ban from politics"

 

Did the 2007 constitution have this clause ? After all she was PM under that constitution, so she should be judged using that constitution not the one "approved" last year.

 

Somehow a guilty verdict is 100% certain, they might as well just read it now.

 

 

[Thailand]

How can you take these people seriously?

[halloween]

43 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

"she will face a lifetime ban from politics"

 

Did the 2007 constitution have this clause ? After all she was PM under that constitution, so she should be judged using that constitution not the one "approved" last year.

 

Somehow a guilty verdict is 100% certain, they might as well just read it now.

 

 

Of course it was, and she knew that there could be no other result given her 100% guilt.

[sjaak327]

3 minutes ago, halloween said:

Of course it was, and she knew that there could be no other result given her 100% guilt.

Oh you know the verdict already ? Did you told her to do a runner.

 

I told you before, you need to open your eyes, you are in Thailand, not Australia. 100% guilt yeah right. 100% <deleted> more like.

 

She stood trial for allowing a failed scheme to go through, which was her political right to do, as she did have an undisputed mandate. All the rest is a political witch hunt. 
 

At least she fled and made the Junta look stupid again, at least if we have to believe Prawit, who denied she being helped by the Junta...

 

But since this is Thailand, everything is possible..

 

Edited August 26, 2017 by sjaak327

[Baerboxer]

8 hours ago, petermik said:

Yeah right............the verdict is cut and dried already

 

Presumably, as they were ready to read it out on Friday before she did a runner.

 

If you mean an appeal, on what grounds would she appeal? Not liking the verdict if found guilty?

Edited August 26, 2017 by Baerboxer

[halloween]

1 minute ago, sjaak327 said:

Oh you know the verdict already ? Did you told her to do a runner.

 

I told you before, you need to open your eyes, you are in Thailand, not Australia. 100% guilt yeah right. 100% <deleted> more like.

 

Stop the pontificating, and give me one thing she did to reduce the losses from her rice scam? There aren't any, which make the guilt and the verdict 100% sure.

[Baerboxer]

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Oh you know the verdict already ? Did you told her to do a runner.

 

I told you before, you need to open your eyes, you are in Thailand, not Australia. 100% guilt yeah right. 100% <deleted> more like.

 

 

Based on the reported evidence, circumstances and context, and based purely on that evidence, are you suggesting she wasn't negligent?

[Baerboxer]

5 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Without a doubt she will have her lawyers appeal, only to fall on the deaf ears of the court system again, after all, the justice system here is all intertwined, or is it, I mean, there could be no corrupt judges, could there ?

 

"she would have to do it herself, meaning she would have to physically be at the court to file a notice of appeal. "

 

Try reading the OP

[Baerboxer]

51 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

"she will face a lifetime ban from politics"

 

Did the 2007 constitution have this clause ? After all she was PM under that constitution, so she should be judged using that constitution not the one "approved" last year.

 

Somehow a guilty verdict is 100% certain, they might as well just read it now.

 

 

Whilst laws don't usually apply retrospectively the do apply was innacted.

 

Yep, based on the charge, the evidence, and that she never defended it, the verdict is probably predictable.

[sjaak327]

 

10 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Based on the reported evidence, circumstances and context, and based purely on that evidence, are you suggesting she wasn't negligent?

What evidence are we talking about. How does one prove beyond a resonable doubt that one is "negligent". 

 

Yes she might have been a lousy organizer of the rice scheme, but that is something different than facing ten years in jail for being "negligent" 

 

This is a witch hunt, nothing more and nothing less. If found guilty, no-one outside of Thailand will take the verdict seriously, no country would extradite her back to Thailand. That much is certain.

 

I have seen you posted and responded on claims that those trials are politically motivated. You seem to think that this is just an excuse used by the Shinawatras, but the way these trials have been conducted gives them this perfect excuse. It is the Thai Justice system after all, where some are tried, and others will never seen the inside of the court room because they are either connected, or have given themselves amnesty, such as the NCPO folks...

 

What remains is the hillarious fact that the Junta "lost" Yingluck, either due to sheer incompetence, or on purpose. Which is it I wonder, I guess we will never know.

Edited August 26, 2017 by sjaak327

[Foozool]

But she already had made the deal to leave Thailand before the verdict is out. ?

Edited August 26, 2017 by Foozool

[berybert]

How much money is Thailand about to spend on submarines it has no need for ?

I wonder if the people who are ordering them will ever be jailed for wasting state coffers.

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

 

What evidence are we talking about. How does one prove beyond a resonable doubt that one is "negligent". 

 

Yes she might have been a lousy organizer of the rice scheme, but that is something different than facing ten years in jail for being "negligent" 

 

This is a witch hunt, nothing more and nothing less. If found guilty, no-one outside of Thailand will take the verdict seriously, no country would extradite her back to Thailand. That much is certain.

 

I have seen you posted and responded on claims that those trials are politically motivated. You seem to think that this is just an excuse used by the Shinawatras, but the way these trials have been conducted gives them this perfect excuse. It is the Thai Justice system after all, where some are tried, and others will never seen the inside of the court room because they are either connected, or have given themselves amnesty, such as the NCPO folks...

She was warned about huge mounting losses. to prove she wasn't negligent, all she has to prove is that she did something about it. all she can say is she suggested a price cut, which proves she knew of the problem, and then caved to political pressure and did NOTHING.

[Baerboxer]

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

 

What evidence are we talking about. How does one prove beyond a resonable doubt that one is "negligent". 

 

Yes she might have been a lousy organizer of the rice scheme, but that is something different than facing ten years in jail for being "negligent" 

 

This is a witch hunt, nothing more and nothing less. If found guilty, no-one outside of Thailand will take the verdict seriously, no country would extradite here back to Thailand. That much is certain.

 

The usual "witch hunt, it's so unfair, she's very nice well loved, it's all political" drivel.

 

She appointed herself as chair of the rice scheme, which was a flagship policy of her government. She never bothered attending let alone chairing any of the meetings despite her self appointment. Warnings from the World Bank, IMF, Bloomberg and OAG personnel where ignored. And still she never bothered attending. However she did insist that she and only she was in charge and stated several times that there was no corruption and that everything was ok/

 

That's my small precis of what I've read in the media. Of course, we've not seen all the evidence.

 

But based on that precis can you please explain your rationale for why she wasn't negligent? It would appear, for whatever reasons, despite lots of warnings, she chose to do nothing.

[tomwct]

34 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

 

What evidence are we talking about. How does one prove beyond a resonable doubt that one is "negligent". 

 

Yes she might have been a lousy organizer of the rice scheme, but that is something different than facing ten years in jail for being "negligent" 

 

This is a witch hunt, nothing more and nothing less. If found guilty, no-one outside of Thailand will take the verdict seriously, no country would extradite her back to Thailand. That much is certain.

 

I have seen you posted and responded on claims that those trials are politically motivated. You seem to think that this is just an excuse used by the Shinawatras, but the way these trials have been conducted gives them this perfect excuse. It is the Thai Justice system after all, where some are tried, and others will never seen the inside of the court room because they are either connected, or have given themselves amnesty, such as the NCPO folks...

 

What remains is the hillarious fact that the Junta "lost" Yingluck, either due to sheer incompetence, or on purpose. Which is it I wonder, I guess we will never know.

You forgot to mention this was organized and directed by her brother in Dubai, so she was directly responsible for what happened, but she decided to go on her shopping trips throughout Asia. Her brother and his allies really screwed her,

so she'll have to pay the piper. I guess her degrees from the US aren't worth the paper their written on. Now she'll learn how to ride a camel! You won't see her because she'll be wearing her Burka!

[poohy]

Can she do it by post, do you think?

[Dave67]

Delusional, your bully boy tactics don't work outside of Thailand sunshine

[metisdead]

Just another reminder that posts using derogatory nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names  will be removed.  If you don’t want your post to be removed, spell people’s names correctly.

[4MyEgo]

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Note from the OP article:

 

 

No she won't, she will have her lawyer do it for her, and her excuse will be she has an ear infection again, hence the reason she cannot attend, and this time she might just have a Dr's certificate 555

[473geo]

It is an absolute disaster for ThaiVisa

 

Spare a thought guys, for Baerboxer, Halloween, Robblok, and Smedley, what will they post about now? No Shins, no rice scheme, no floods, no violence? oh how empty their lives may become?

 

Chin up guys there may be another twerking thread soon, perhaps a poem  or a song from the PM to lift your gloom happy days