iLaw HOME
  • Important case
  • Cases, Other cases

Wattana: Contempt of Court by scheduled to give interview with the press

Latest Update: 26/07/2018

Defendant

Wattana Muangsook

Case Status

Judgment / End of trial

Case Started

2017

Complainant / Plaintiff

No information

Table of Content

On 28 August 2017 Watana,  a key member of Pheu Thai Party went to the Criminal Court to file appeal against pre-trial detention order under his sedition case. Wattana's detention case was due to his facebook post on the missing of 1932 revolution plaque. It was reported later that either Wattana or his team sent an invitation to the press via Line application to invite the media to interview Wattana at the Criminal Court after he finished with the court procedure. 

Later in the same day the Criminal Court order to conduct a hearing to determine whether Wattana contempted the court by give interview to the press without obtain permission from the court's officials or not. It found Wattana Guilty for misbehave in the court and sentenced him to 2 months in prison and fine in the sum of 500 Bath. His prison sentence was however suspend for the period of 2 years. 

After the hearing, the court found Wattana guilty for contempt of court reasoned that he misbehaved 
The cour ordered that allegedly contempt of Court by sending an interview appointment to press via Line application that in practice he had to ask the court for permission beforehand. On the same day, The court rendered the verdict saying that Watana was found guilty for contempt of court and gave him suspended two months in prison and fined 500 THB.

Defendant Background

Wattana Muangsook is a former member of parliament from the Pheu Thai Party. He has served as Minister for Social Development and Human Security, the Minister for Industry. He has also worked as the Deputy Minister for Commerce and as a member of parliament from Prachinburi province. 
 
Wattana has been summoned by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) at least five times. The first summon came through NCPO Order 3/2014 on 23 May 2014. The minimum of four other times he has been summoned have all been related to his criticisms of the NCPO through various channels, usually Facebook.
 
Besides this case, Wattana has been accused of crimes for expressing his views in four other cases. One case revolved around Watanna accusing Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan of sexism, after former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra came forward with allegations she was being followed and photographed by soldiers. Prawit had explained in an interview that it was because of her beauty. 
 
In addition, Wattana is accused of insulting the courts and committing sedition under Section 116 of the Criminal Code in relation to Facebook posts giving words of encouragement to former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.
 
Another case of sedition against Wattana relates to his posting on Facebook criticisms of the disappearance of the 1932 Revolution memorial plaque. He has also been accused of breaking his temporary bail agreement, and of contempt of court for fliming himself via Facebook Live.

Offense

Others
Civil and Commercial Procedure Code Section 31

Allegation

Wattana send and appointment via Line application to media to give an interview at the Court's front gate. The court considered as a misbehaviour in the court area.

Circumstance of Arrest

No information

Trial Observation

No information

Black Case

No information

Court

Criminal Court

Additional Info

No information

Reference

No information
28 August 2017
 
Khaosod Online reported that on 10.30AM, Wattana came to the Criminal Court to appeal his provisional detention for the accusation of sedition related to his Facebook posts about the 1932 Revolution memorial plaque. After submitting the appeal, Wattana gave an interview to journalists explaining the reasoning behind the appeal.
 
Wattana explained that he did not intend to flee and had complied with previous appointments with investigators. As such, the court’s order for provisional detention on 21 August 2017 were illegal under both the law and the constitution, since detention must be based on a demonstrated need to prevent suspects from fleeing. 
 
Wattana also spoke of Yingluck’s failure to appear to hear her verdict and the future of the Pheu Thai Party. 
After Wattana gave the interview, police invited Wattana and his lawyer into the judge’s office, notifying him that the court’s director would interrogate him. However, they did not explain what the interrogation was about.
 
At 5PM, Matichon Online reported that Wattana had been accused of contempt of court for scheduling interviews with media at the court without seeking permission from court officials.
 
In this case, the Director-General of the Criminal Court authorixed a court official with accusing Wattana of scheduling through the Line application interviews with media. The official brought copies of the alleged Line messages and records of the interviews as evidence.  
During the inquiry, Wattana defended himself by saying that he had not planned in advance to be interviewed by mass media. He added that the interview had revolved around the details of the case, rather than what had taken place in the court room.  
 
Regardless, the court reasoned interviews in the court’s area should always seek the court’s permission in advance. This is a norm the court has previously publicised, even though the court’s administrative regulations do not specify the rule of seeking permission. The court reasoned that Wattana as a lawyer should have known the rules, and should not have exploited the court vicinities for self gain. 
 
As such, Wattana’s actions were inappropriate for the court setting, and constituted contempt of court under Section 31 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code. Wattana was sentenced to two months in prison (suspended for two years) and fined 500 baht.
 
Since Wattana had previously been punished for contempt of court (for his Facebook Live video on 21 August 2017), the ruling came with the stipulation that if Wattana violates the law again, this will be seen as a challenge to and as exhibiting inadequate fear of the law. 
 
 

Verdict

No information

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