iLaw HOME
  • Cases, Other cases

Samart: Distributed “Vote No” leaflets in Chiang Mai

Latest Update: 22/08/2019

Defendant

Samart

Case Status

Case dismissed by Court

Case Started

2016

Complainant / Plaintiff

No information

Table of Content

Samart distributed the leaflets with the message “Straight down the Dictators, long live Democracy – VOTE NO on August 7th” and put it in windshield wiper in front of 10 cars that parked in Chiang Mai’s Pantip Plaza. He was then arrested and prosecuted with the Referendum Act of 2016 section 61 (2).

Samart was detained for 10 days before got bail. In the court process, Samart admitted that he distributed such leaflets but this is not against the law. Chiang Mai Provinical Court dismissed the case because the content in the leaflets cannot be linked to the draft constitution. 

Defendant Background

Samart, 63-year old while being arrest, helps his family for Mosaic pictures selling at the shop in Chiang Mai. His friend told that he joined with the red shirt movement as an individual. He also volunteered for medical service in red shirt huge rally, 2010 at Ratchaprasong intersection.
 
Besides that, Samart have to take a medicine for congenital disease cause to inconvenient for his medical care while detained.

Offense

Referendum Act of 2016 section 61

Allegation

On 20 July 2016, Samart publicized the leaflets with the message “straight down the Dictators, long live Democracy – VOTE NO on August 7th" was then alleged as violent, aggressive, inciting or threatening and aimed to against a voter from casting a ballot or vote in any direction shall be considered as disrupting the referendum and additional question on 7 August 2016.

Circumstance of Arrest

On 23 July 2016, before 8.00an, Samart was arrested by the police officers collaborated with Military Circle 33rd officers and administrative officers together around 60 people claiming power under Section 44 followed an arrest warrant of the court in Chiang Mai Provincial Court along with total 6 evidence lists such as 405 leaflets with the message “Straight down the Dictators, long live Democracy – VOTE NO on August 7th”, including 1 motorcycle, clothes and shoes.

Trial Observation

No information

Black Case

อ.3542/2559

Court

Chiang Mai Provincial Court

Additional Info

No information

Reference

No information
21 July 2016
 
The manager online, reported that during 3 pm.-5pm. Vote No leaflets were distributed and put it in the windshield wiper in front of 10 cars that parked in Chiang Mai’s Pantip Plaza.
 
After investigation, the police officers informed the Vote No leaflet distributor who had around 45-50 years of his ages, wore a gray T-shirt along with his black bag, also living in Nong-hoi sub-district, Muang District, Chiang Mai Province. He used unknown number gray pickup car with against coup d'etat stickers.
 
23 July 2016
 
Samart was arrested by the police officers collaborated with Military Circle 33rd Officers and 60 Authority officers claiming power from Section 44 following an arrest warrant of Chiang Mai Provincial Court along with total 6 evidences such as 405 leaflets with the message  “straight down the Dictators, long live Democracy – VOTE NO on August 7th”, including 1 motorcycle, clothes and shoes.
 
 
25 July 2016
 
Prachatai reported Samart was detained in jail during the trail in addition to Chiang Mai Provincial Court’s order.
 
2 August 2016
 
The court allowed Samart for his bail was set at 100,000 baht without further conditions. Before being released he was detained at Police Station for 2 days and in jail for 9 days.
 
However, he insisted that the message in that leaflet was not violent, aggressive, threatening, rude or seditious.
 
 
12 September 2016
 
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights reported Samart was prosecuted to the court by prosecutor under the offense of Referendum Act,  Section 61 (2)
 
Later on, Samart used the same mortgage securities in order to bail and deposition examination on 10 October 2016.
 
 
10 October 2016
 
deposition examination 
 
The defendant denied the accustion. He accepted that he produce and distributed the leaflets but what he did is not against the law.
 
22-23 February 2017
 
Chaing Mai Provincial Court scheduled for the witness hearings.
 
24 February 2017
 
Chiang Mai Provincial Court sheduled to read a verdict. Samart and his lawyers with 3-4 friends came to hear the verdict. But the prosecutor did not come.
 
The Judge appeared on the bench aroung 9.30 and read a verdict to dismiss this case. 
 
After that Samrt told our observer that he thank you to everyone who helped him on this case including the lawyer team. On one side he felt that the justice is able to be found in this country which still depends on the one who can give to you. The judges in this case has a just mind. This fight at least showed a standaed or triggered that Democracy is what we have to fight for not to beg for. The victory of this case does not belong to him because he did not do anything but express. This case is a victory of the country and the people.
 

Verdict

Verdict of the Court of the First Instance

The Court considered that 'Dictatorship' means an administration with absolute power and 'straight down' means entirely destroy which are the abstract words. The message does not mean the draft constitution in the general referendum. It can be linked to the current government but cannot be linked to the draft constitution because the government did not draft it by itself. Reasonable persons who read the leaflet cannot link to the referendum. And the voters are required to be 18 years old upwards, which are mature enough to make a decision by their own. The message in the leaflets therefore cannot convince anyone to vote in one way or another or not go to vote.
 
The terms 'Straight down Dictatorship, long live Democracy' is also used a long time ago among the democracy admirers before the defendant put it in the leaflets.
 
The court also stated that according to Section 7, the Referendum Act intended to maintain accuracy during the referendum process and did not intent to restrict rights and liberty of the people. The criminal offence also need to be interpret strictly. Although, the prosecution witnesses testified that the message is aggressive and an political incitement, these are only personal opinion. There was no witness from the Election Commission of the Constitution Drafting Committee or the linguistic who confirmed on this issue. 
 
The act of the defendant is a not a violation of the law. The case therefore dismissed. All leaflet papers are not the property that prescribed by the law that any person makes or processes to be an offence. The seized leaflets therefore shall be returned to the defendant. 

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