Pornpen: Defamation to Royal Thai Armed Forces

24 August 2014

 

Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, the director of the foundation, and the foundation were summoned to acknowledge the accusation with an inquiry officer at the Yala Police Station in Yala province. Maj. Likhit Krachodnok on behalf of the 41st Infantry Regiment accused Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, the director of the foundation, over defamatory charge by disseminating an opened letter that defamed the 41st Infantry Regiment of Yala province. According to the summons, the accused were required to meet the inquiry officer on 25 August 2014. The foundation however received the summons on 24 August 2014, it then issued a letter seeking a permission to postpone the appointment to Sunday 14 September 2014 and the accused would be accompanied by Somchai Homlaor who is the chairperson and the representative of the foundation.

 

 

6 September 2014

 

Adilan Aliishoh, the attorney in this case, was informed by Pol. Lt. Pongsak Promket, the inquiry officer of the Yala Police Station, that the case was not under the Yala Police Station but under the Thathong Police station, Raman district, Yala province. The police also informed the accused, the foundation and Pornpen, through their lawyer that the summons were already cancelled and considered to be invalid.

 

 

9 September 2014

 

The lawyer of the Cross Cultural Foundation was notified by Pol. Lt. Col. Pisit Lomkampha, the inquiry officer of the Thathong Police Station, that the summons were already issued and the accused had to report to the police on 14 September 2014.

 

 

17 June 2015

 

The public prosecutor of Yala province issued a non-prosecution order not to sue Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, the director of the Cross Cultural Foundation, and the foundation. After the consideration, the public prosecutor was of an opinion that the accused only intended to bring the factual information happening to Adil Samae to the commander of the plaintiff as well as other relevant organisations to initiate an investigation, which was considered as a way to generally criticize the performance of the public organisation with an absence of a malicious intention. The prosecutor also stated that although the complainant submitted the complaint on behalf of the organisation not for himself, however the complainant was not given any authority from the Royal Thai Armed Force. The complainant was therefore not an injured party.