iLaw HOME
  • Cases, Section 112

Jeng Dokjik : gave a speech on UDD stage in 2010

Latest Update: 04/06/2021

Defendant

Yoswaris Chuklom

Case Status

Judgment / End of trial

Case Started

2011

Complainant / Plaintiff

Public Prosecutor of Department of Special Litigation, Criminal Case Section 10, Office of the Attorney General.

Table of Content

On 29 March 2010, Yoswaris or Jeng Dokjik gave speech at the political rally site of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) near Phan Fah Bridge. Part of Jeng's speech was deemed to be offense against the king. He was later prosecuted in the court.

Initially, Jeng pleaded guilty before the court, however he later change his plea from guilty to no guilty and asked to fight the case. The witnesses examination of this case were proceeded from October to December 2012.

In January 2013, the Criminal Court sentenced Jeng to 2 years in prison under Lese Majeste Law without suspension. Jeng Appeal the case and was released on bail while stand trial in the Court of Appeal. Jeng bail's deposit worth 500,000 Baht.

On 1 May 2014, the Court of Appeal upheld verdict of the Criminal Court, sentenced Jeng to 2 years in prison without suspension. After verdict had been read Jeng filed bail petition to the Criminal Court. The Criminal Court however the passed Jeng's petition to the Supreme Court to taking consideration. While waiting for the order of the Supreme Court, Jeng was detained at the Bangkok Remand Prison

On 6 May 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed Jeng's bail petition given that Jeng did not submit his appeal to the Supreme Court, the court then believed that Jeng might flee. Jeng was detained at the Bangkok Remand Prison from 1 May to 23 September 2014 when the Supreme Court ordered to release Jeng on bail after he deposit bail money in the sum of 700,000 Baht.

On 7 October 2016, the Supreme Court set to render a verdict. However neither Jeng nor the prosecutor were presented at the court. The court then found that summon that had beent sent to Jeng's address wasn't reach Jeng. The court then order to resend summon and set to render a verdict again on 15 December 2016. Later, on 15 December 2016 Jeng did not present in the court but had his lawyer present and requested the court to postpone the schedule as Jeng was sick and could not present himself in the court. The court then reschedule to render a verdict on  7 March 2017.

  

 

Defendant Background

Yoswaris also known as “Jeng Dokjik”, was a former secretary assistant to Deputy Minister of Interior. He also had active role in the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD).

Offense

Article 112 Criminal Code

Allegation

On 29 March 2010,Yoswaris or Jeng Dokjik gave speech at the political rally site of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) near Phan Fah bridge. Part of his speech and action was regard as an offensive against the king and deemed to be offense under Lese Majeste Law

Circumstance of Arrest

No information

Trial Observation

No information

Black Case

อ.2740/2553

Court

Criminal Court

Additional Info

The hearings of prosecution's witnesses will be held at 9am, 30 – 31 October 2012 while the hearings of defendant's witnesses will be held on 27-28 November and 11-12 December 2012. 

Reference

No information

2 August 2011

First day of the hearings, Jeng decided to confess. The court announced that the verdict will be delivered on 29 August 2011.

 
29 August 2011
 
Jeng did not appear for the verdict reading given a reason that he had severe diarrhea. Later, he took back his confession and decided to defend the case. 
 
27 February 2012 
 
The court had arranged the evidence examination while Yoswaris Ch.continues to deny the charge. Accordingly, Yoswaris Ch. requested to invite 20 witnesses to defend the case on 27-28 November and 11-12 December 2012. The prosecutor side also requested to invite 16 witnesses for the hearings on 30 – 31 October 2012.
 
17 January 2013

The Criminal Court gave a verdict on this case. The Verdict states that the defendant covered his mouth withe his hand means he was talking about someone who is in majestic position because when he was talking about Mr.Abhisit Aejjajiva or General Prayuth Chan-ocha, Thailand's army chief, he did not do such gesture.
 
The Court found the defenant guilty as charge and sentence him to 3 years imprisonment. Because the defendant has given an information to the Court for the benefit of the trial, the penalty shall be reduced one-third to 2 years.
 
Around 14.00pm the Court granted the defendant on bail.

1 May 2014

 
The Criminal Court read the verdict of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the verdict of the Criminal Court .
 
The defendant submitted a request for bail but the Criminal Court sent the request to the Supreme Court so the defendant has to be detained while waiting for the order from the Supreme Court.

6 May 2014
The Supreme Court issued an order to deny the request for bial given that the defendant might escape.
 
22 September 2014
 
Matichon reported that the defendant’s lawyer stated that the Supreme Court gave an order to release Jeng Dokjik on bail with 700,000 baht security without any conditions. The lawyer will submit 700, 000 baht cash for bail to the Criminal Court on the next day and the release warrant will be issued to the prison.
 
6 February 2018
 
Yoswaris was released from the Bangkok Remand Prison after he compleated his prison term.

Verdict

The Verdict of the Court of Appeal
 
The Court of Appeal considered the case of Jeng Dokjik delivering a speech on a UDD stage at Pan Fah Bridge with a loud-speaker. His speech was also observed through a screen projector to the crowd. In his speech, the defendant stated that there General Prem and another individual who behind General Prem made it difficult for then-Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajva to dissolve parliament. The defendant also spoke and showed a gesture that can be interpreted to be directed to HM the King.
 
The legal issue is being considered is whether the plaintiff's complaint fit into the elements of crime as defined under Section 112. The defendant argued that the defamation offense can be committed only when the injured person was identified or was clearly referred to. From the text described in the complaint by the plaintiff, the audience present could not understand that HM the King was mentioned. This complaint is therefore incomplete.
 
The Court of Appeal acknowledges that the plaintiff described the crime under Section 112, identifying the date, time, place and all the actions committed by the defendant. The plaintiff described the defendant's speech with a large audience listening through an amplifier. The defendant’s speech clearly referred to HM the King because General Prem, the head of Privy Council and an individual who is behind General Prem was mentioned. The complaint of the plaintiff is therefore complete.
 
The next issue that needs to be considered is whether the defendant’s speech is defamatory to the King. The defendant appealed that he did not directly refer to the King and the plaintiff’s witness testified with political bias or has prior grievance with the defendant.
 
The Court of Appeal observes that, during the speech, the defendant aggressively attacked General Prem, the head of Privy Council, then-PM Abhisit Vejjajiva, and General  Anupong Paochinda, Commander in Chief of the Royal Thai Army. The defendant did not identify the name of the person who controlled General Prem and showed a gesture that indicated that referring specifically to this individual was unspeakable. It showed that the individual referred to in question is of a higher rank than General Prem. It is also common knowledge that the King has appointed Gen. Prem to head the Privy Council. Therefore, it was clear that the defendant was referring to HM the King and that the King was his opponent. 
 
Even though the plaintiff’s witnesses can only testify based on personal opinions, there is no evidence that the witnesses intended to incriminate the defendant. All witnesses testified honestly and did not have prior grievance with the defendant.
 
As the defendant claimed that he was always loyal to the King and joined many royal ceremonies, the court judged that to ascertain the defendant’s loyalty, it could not only account for the past actions of the defendants, but also his current circumstances. Thus, the court is judging if the defendant is consistent with his actions. The court concluded that if the defendant was truly loyal, he would not have given the speech or made the gesture. The defendant's argument therefore, inadmissible. 
 
As the defendant appealed and asked the court to commute the sentence, the court sees that Thai Constitution provides that Thailand adopts a democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State, The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. The state and every person shall have a duty to uphold the nation, religions, the King and the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution.
 
Furthermore, the Thai people have historically worshipped the King. No individual has dared to encroach or offend HM the King. The defendant defamed, imputed, likely to impair the reputation of the King, and therefore should be punished to prevent others from imitating the acts of the defendant. The Court of the First Instance sentenced the defendant to 2 years of imprisonment without suspension.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Other Cases

  • Important Case

Teepakorn: Sharing YouTube video and criticizing the monarchy on Facebook

  • Cases, Computer Crime Act, Section 112
  • Important Case

Nut: Wore crop top at Siam Paragon

  • Cases, Section 112
  • Important Case

Tepha: Defying public assembly act(2nd case)

  • Cases, Public Assembly Act