- Important case
- Cases, Section 112
Thitinan: Offended against the King’s Portrait
Latest Update: 04/06/2021
Defendant
Thitinan
Case Status
Judgment / End of trial
Case Started
2012
Complainant / Plaintiff
The crowd gathered in front of the Constitutional Court reported the case against her at the Thung Song Hong Police Station.
Table of Content
In July 2012, while a group of people gathered at the Constitution Court to show their apreciation toward the court, Thitinan walked throught the mass then kicked portrait of the King which held by one man. She was later put on trial.
During the interogation and trial Thitinan was remanded in custody for a short period of time before she was released on bail. The court examine witnesses of this case in March 2014, Thitina admitted that she did an offense according to the charge but the offense was due to her mental condition as we was suffering with Bipolar Disorder. During the witnesses examination, Thitinan did not testify on her behalf.
On 21 may 2014, the court found Thitinan guilty and sentenced her to 2 years in prison. Her sentence was mitigated to one year due to her guilty plea and the sentence was suspened. In May 2015, the Court of Appeal sentence Thitinan to oner year in prison but lifted the suspension on the ground that the court be live that she can control her self in a certain extend while committing an offense.
After the Court of Appeal order to sentence Thitinan to a year in prison without suspension Thitinan appealed the case to the Supreme Court and was release on bail during the trial. On 20 January 2016, the Supreme Court ordered to sentence Thitinan to a year in prison without suspension. She was taken to the prison in the same day to serve her sentence.
In August 2016, the Royal Pardon decree was issued. Thitinan was listed as detainee that set to be release prior to her actual prison term, she was released on 27 August 2016. Overall Thitinan served 221 days in prison.
Thitinan's case interesting because the Court of the First Instance suspended her sentence due to her medical concern, However, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court later reversed the verdict, cancle the suspension on the ground that even Thitinan was suffered from Bi-Polar Disorder but she had concious while committed an offense.
Defendant Background
Thitinan, an old woman who is suffering from mental disorder (according to the medical records submitted to the Court by her relatives). It could not be verified if she had participated in any political demonstration. It was known from testimony given by her son to the Court that Thitinan used to listen to radio programs of the Red Shirts played by her husband at home.
Offense
Article 112 Criminal Code
Allegation
On July 13, 2012, a mass of approximately over 400 people, comprising Multi-colored Shirt group, Dharma Army group, People’s Liberation Army for Democracy group, and Thai Patriots group assembled to support as well as encourage the Constitutional Court judges regarding the issue of the amendment of constitution proposed by Pheu Thai government.
The petition was filed to the Constitutional Court in order to be considered whether the certain amendment was to overthrow the democratic regime in which the Monarch acts as Head of State in accordance with Thai Constitution Section 68 or not.
During the gatheringThitinan walked straight through the crowd to reach HM Royal Portrait before she committed a disrespectful action against the King’s portrait by allegedly using her foot stepped on His Majesty’s face in the inaugurated royal portrait: meanwhile, the rally associated right in front of Constitutional Court to support the duty of the Constitutional Court judges.
The action suddenly brought about a harsh dissatisfaction from the demonstrators. With anger, the mass rushingly attacked her as well as throwing tons of curses on her but what Thitinan did was just laughing.
Thre police tried to control the situation before taking Mrs. Thitinan to calm her mind at a police booth. Many cameramen and mass media had evidentially recorded the pictures and videos of such incident.
During the detention, the police officers enquired about the purpose of her presence at Constitution Court. Mrs.Thitinan answered that her intention was to step on Wasan’s face. (Wasan Soipisut, Constitution Court president)
Circumstance of Arrest
Thitinan was first apprehended at the crime scene. Her action stirred up fierce and fiery reaction from the people gathered there to show their support to the Constitutional Court. Many surrounded and bombarded her with foul words.
Fearing she would be hurt by the mob, the police officials took her away from the scene. She was later brought to the Thung Song Hong Police Station which was in charge of the area of the crime scene.
Meanwhile, some demonstrators followed suit and reported the lèse majesté charge against her.
Trial Observation
No information
Black Case
อ.4809/2555
Court
Criminal Court
Additional Info
No information
Reference
No information
13 July 2012
Thitinan walked through the crowd in front of the Constitutional Court heading to the royal portrait of His Majesty the King before committing the disrespectful act. Her act led to a radical dissatisfaction from the protesters, thus, they hastily attacked and cursed at the her.
Police officers, who secured the area, came to ease and control the situation then took Thitinan to the police booth to calm her down.
14 July 2012
Thitinan was detained in a mental institute, Kullaya Rajanakarin Institue, to receive a mental illness diagnosis from psychiatrists in order to evaluate if Thitinan was insane or not.
17 July 2012
There is a widespread rumour on the internet that Thitinan was about to flee the country to New Zealand in which she was domiciled by Thai Airways flight TG 491. A large group of roughly 200 protesters to turn up at Suvarnabhumi airport to protest against Thitinan by holding cardboards, singing songs, and waiting for Thitinan under the control of an estimate of one company of police.
However, Thitinan eventually did not show up, but her spouse did and solely took the flight back to New Zealand.
Additionally, a Thai Airways captain, who was in charge of the flight, made an announcement that he and all the cabin crew could not respectably take-off the plane if Thitinan was on the passenger list since she was considered as a psychotic person.
While, the police officers informed the protestors that Mrs.Thitinan did not appear for checking-in but actually was being hospitalized. After making sure that Mrs.Thitinan did not fly to New Zealand, the rally was later dissolved.
Pol Col Pong Sangmurin, Chief of Thung Song Hong police station, reported that the lèse majesté charge was lodged against her according to Criminal Code Article 112 with a detention at Srithanya Hospital in which she had a medical records. She later was sent and detained at Kullaya Rajanakarin Instituion for mental illness diagnosis. Also, the visits were not permitted due to the patient’s acutely manic symptom. The patient therefore could not be allowed to go abroad yet her passport was still being held by the officer.
Thitinan’s relatives stated that the plane ticket was a round-trip ticket of economy class flight which would be automatically cancelled in the case of no-show passenger.
15 August 2012
Deputy Bangkok Metropolitan Police chief Pol.Maj.Gen Anuchai Lekbamrung, who took charge of the Legal Affairs, updated regarding the progress on the case saying the case was during the procedure that an inquiry officer recently forwarded the initial inquiry file to the Royal Thai Police Headquarters on August 1, 2012 in order to propose the issue to the committee of lèse majesté charges for consideration.
For the rumor that said Thitinan had escaped out of the country was undoubtedly made up since she was seized and under the detention at Kullaya Rajanakarin mental Institute, where the observation of the patient’s behavior and mental health operated for at least 40 days which its result would be monitored by the inquiry officer periodically.
In the same day, Dr. Sirisak Thitidilhokrat, a director of Kullaya Rajanakarin Institute, Department of Mental Health, Ministry of Public Health, reported the progress on forensically psychiatric diagnosis of Thitinan’s case that the forensic psychiatrists team, composed of 11 psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, clinical psychologists, social workers, occupational therapists, Mental Health Department consultant, and deputy director of Mental Health Department, set up the meeting to diagnose the case in conformity with the spirit and standard of medical profession.
The team provided its suggestion to the inquiry officers from Thung Song Hong police station. For the initial result, the committee concluded that Thitinan truly had a diagnosable mental illness. However, the next process would be based on the following decision made by the case officers.
As for the inquiry of concerned persons, three eyewitnesses have been examined, including, her husband and her son who stated that lately Thitinan refused to take the medicine. Thitinan's medicines were provided to the official. Thitinan's relatives promised to bring forth a letter from the treating doctor and give it to the police later. The evidence shall be submitted for a review by the Committee on Lèse Majesté Cases and the Bangkok Metropolitan Police for further action.
17 August 2012
The Criminal Court Chief Justice, Mr. Tawee Prachuaplarp, said about the proceeding of the case that if the defendant is found to have suffered from a permanent mental disease and had committed the offence while could not control herself, she might be exempted from punishment. But if she only suffered from a lapse mental disorder or that she still manage to speak with reasons and appreciate nature of the crime or may be able to control herself, she shall be punished for her act, though her sentence could be reduced from what is provided for in the Penal Code’s Article 65.
The Penal Code’s Article 65 states that "Whenever any person commits an offence at the time of not being able to appreciate the nature, or illegality of his act or not being able to control himself on account of defective mind, mental disease or mental infirmity, such person shall not be punished for such offence. But, if the offender is still partially able to appreciate the nature or illegality of his act, or is still partially able to control himself, such person shall be punished for such offence, but the Court may inflict less severe punishment to any extent than that provided by the law for such offence.”
The offence of Article 112 carries punishment of imprisonment from 3-15 years. If it is established by the medical examination that the alleged offender suffers from a mental disorder or could not control herself, at their discretion, the Court may inflict less severe punishment including one or two years of imprisonment.
In addition, if either the inquiry official or the Court deems that the alleged offender or the defendant is a defective-minded person and is unable to stand trial, an investigation of the case has to be ceased. And the alleged offender shall be transferred to a mental health hospital for treatment as appropriate. It is not difficult to determine the case of people with defective mind since most of them would have had medical records to prove their illness and treatment. For a person to be exempted from punishment, it has to be established that the person really suffers from the disease and did not fake it.
24 December 2012
Witness examination
22 April 2013
Pretrial hearing
11 March 2014
Prosecution witness examination: Day One
Morning
Two prosecution witnesses were examined including Sanit and Prapawan, eyewitnesses.
According to Sanit, while a group photo session was prepared in front of the Constitutional Court, he was holding a portrait of His Majesty the King. The defendant approached him and ordered to lay it down. As he refused the order, the defendant booted until he fell down, so did the portrait. Then, she stomped on it.
After the incidence, Sanit reported the case against the defendant at the Thung Song Hong Police Station. He personally deems while committing the crime, the defendant was fully conscious. And that the defendant behaved so wildly and uncontrollably at the police station, he thinks it was an act of hers.
Another prosecution witness, Prapawan insisted that the defendant had intentionally committed the crime and that she looked like a normal person without showing any sign of mental disorder. Her relatives also had no prove of her medical condition. Prapawan also noted that the police had not shown their keen interest to work on the case.
Afternoon
Two prosecution witnesses were examined including Wannee and Peerawit, two demonstrators at the incidence.
According to Wannee, after the defendant stomped on the portrait of the King, she approached her and had a quarrel with her. She insisted that the defendant then looked 100% sane while she was committing the crime.
Another prosecution witness, Peerawit, who was participating in the demonstration and had tried to take the defendant away from the crime scene stated that prior to committing the offence, the defendant looked extremely upset. But after she kicked the portrait of the King, she cried out.
12 March 2014
Prosecution witness examination: Day Two
Morning
Two prosecution witnesses who were demonstrators were examined including Napat and Thichakorn. They were members of the multi-colored group.
Both witnesses stated that prior to kicking the portrait of the King, the defendant kept walking back and forth in the are and murmured something quite loud, but illegible. Not showing any sign of daze, she looked extremely angry at something. Then, she kicked the portrait of the King and expressed her sense of vindication.
Afternoon
The Court received evidence from Wannarat, an eyewitness who was present closest to the defendant at the crime scene. She put her arms around the body of the defendant to prevent her from the assault of the demonstrators.
According to Wannarat, though she was present closest to the defendant, but the situation then was quite chaotic and she had no chance to carefully observe the reaction of the defendant.
13 March 2014
Prosecution witness examination: Day Three (last day)
Morning
Only one prosecution witness was examined including Pol Sen Sgt Maj Anuwat, the police official who took the defendant from the crime scene to a police box.
According to Pol Sen Sgt Maj Anuwat, during the incidence, he took the defendant away from the crime scene fearing she would be subject to physical assault. He rather believed the defendant behaved insanely as she kept rambling about things and bragged about being an important person in the past.
Afternoon
Two prosecution witnesses were examined.
The first witness, Dr. Duangta, a physician from the the Galya Rajanagarindra Institute (GRI) who treated the defendant, gave evidence that the defendant suffered from bipolar disorder strong in her manic and impulsive behavior. When the condition occurs, she could be quite aggressive and impulsive and is unable to control herself. She thinks she is acting as someone else.
In this case, the defendant might know who she was, but could not control herself. The condition showed up as she had failed to adhere to the treatment. But Dr. Duangta said she had given treatment to the defendant until she got better and believed she was fit to stand trial.
The next witness, Pol Lt Col Pibhop, inquiry official, stated that while interviewing the defendant, he could not really muster any information from the questions he was asked about the incidence in which she was alleged to have kicked the portrait of the King.
But on general issues such as who she was, where she came from, the defendant was able to speak with clarity. While conducting the interview, the defendant behaved erratically, and thus she was transferred to a mental hospital (Srithanya Hospital) for examination.
14 March 2014
Defense witness examination
Morning
Only one defense witness was examined including Chayanon, the defendant’s son, who stated that the defendant was ill and had been on treatment for a long time. She used to receive treatment in New Zealand for a while.
Prior to the incidence, the defendant often failed to take the drug and showed the symptoms. The condition got worse when she went to stay with her friend in Saraburi and at her sister’s house in Ram Inthra. Her behaviors have caused an immense trouble to both her friend and sister.
21 May 2014
The delivery of the verdict
The Court found Thitinan guilty of Penal Code’s Article 112 and sentenced her to two years in jail, while having it suspended for three years.
After the delivery of the verdict, the defendant’s son who came after the verdict was read asked the Court if the defendant is able to travel abroad or not, the Court said yes, but her relatives must have submitted the report of her medical treatment as requested in the verdict.
12 May 2015
Reading of a verdict of the Court of Appeal
Matichon Online reported that the Court of Appeal set a schedule to read a verdict of the case against Thitinan at the Criminal Court today.
The Court of Appeal sentenced Thitinan to 1 year in prison without suspension.
Around 5.30 PM, reporter from Prachatai reported that the court released Thitinan on bail with deposit in the sum of 300,000 Baht and ordered her relatives to submitt her medical record of the latest 2 months to the court within 7 days.
Verdict
Summary of the Verdict of the Court of First Instance
In this case, the public prosecutor alleged that the defendant has committed an offence against the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent, or the Regent and shall be punished according to the Penal Code’s Article 112.
The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges while insisted that she had committed the offence when she could neither appreciate the nature of the crime nor controlled herself.
It is established by the Court based on the existing facts that the defendant suffered from bipolar disorder. During the time and at the crime scene, the defendant instructed Mr. Sanit Panthong to lay down the portrait of His Majesty the King, the current reign, which he was holding. Then, she kicked it with her foot until it fell to the ground and then stomped on it two more times. Thus, the defendant was found guilty of defaming, insulting, or threatening the King as alleged.
The issue to be further reviewed is when the defendant was committing the crime, was she able to appreciate the nature of the crime or control herself due to her defective mind or not?
A number of prosecution witnesses coherently and essentially testified that while they were standing in rows to have the group photo, the defendant approached them and called out the name of Mr. Wasan Sroipisut. Then, she paused in front of Mr. Sanit who was holding the portrait of the King and instructed him to lay down the portrait. Upon the refusal of Mr. Sanit, the defendant kicked the portrait of the King until it fell to the ground and then stomped on it.
The act of the defendant has stirred up the emotion of the demonstrators who surrounded and shouted at her. Then, the organizer of the demonstration had to take the defendant away to ask her questions at their tent. From the conversation, the defendant appeared to talk sanely and was aware that she was kicking the portrait of the King.
The evidence given by the prosecution witnesses was consistent with the video submitted as evidence by the plaintiffs. Even though the video did not contain the scene when the crime was committed, but it showed the moment the defendant approached the demonstrators and called out the name of Mr. Wasan Sroipisut and the conversation between the defendant and the demonstrators in which she sometimes answered to the question, sometimes not answered the questions, or just kept laughing.
At the inquiry level, the defendant stated that she was aware that there were both Yellow Shirts and Red Shirts in Thailand and both groups of the people have different political ideologies. The defendant admitted to liking the Red Shirts and the Phue Thai Party.
The evidence given by the defendant was consistent with what was given by Mr. Chayanon, her son who said that his father watched the channels belonging to the Red Shirts all day long and as the defendant was sitting there, she got to watch it, too. It was widely known that the channels featured negative information about the Constitutional Court and may prompt uncritical audience to hold a negative view toward the performance of the Constitutional Court including the defendant.
The doctor who treated the defendant gave evidence that she felt the defendant was frustrated by politics and during the incidence the defendant was in a manic mood. Even though she was aware of what she was doing, she could not control herself. And she was too impulsive. While committing the offence, the defendant’s mind was defective. But according to the video, the defendant was able to make her own journey to the Constitutional Court and was able to respond to questions from the demonstrators as to what she was doing there.
Based on all the evidence, it could be established that though the defendant was suffering from a mental disorder, but while she was committing the crime, she was still able to appreciate the nature of the crime.
It is ruled that the defendant has committed an offence against the Penal Code’s Article 112 coupled with Article 65(2) and she was sentenced to two years in jail. Given her pleading guilty to the charge, her imprisonment shall be reduced by a half to one year.
Since it does not appear that the defendant had been sentenced with imprisonment before, and considering that her mental illness has contributed enormously to her committing the crime, to serve the interest of the defendant and society as a whole, it is deemed fit that the defendant should be given a chance to redeem herself and to receive her treatment for the illness.
Thus, the imprisonment shall be suspended for three years during which time she is required to report her progress of the medical treatment every six months for two years.
Summary of the verdict of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeal sentenced Thitinan to 1 year in prison without suspension.
Earlier in May 2014, the Court of the First Instance sentenced Thitinan to 2 years in prison but mitigated her sentenced to 1 year as she pleaded guilty.
The Court of First Instance also suspended Thitinan's sentence on the ground that she was suffering from bipolar disorder and ordered Thitinan's relatives to report progress of her treatment every 6 months in the period of 2 years.
According to the Court of Appeal, the cancelation of suspension will be a sample for others who might committ the same crime. Moreover, the court also believed that Thitinan can control her self while she committed an offense.