User:Clumsily/Public Prosecutor v Charnchoengsilpakul

Public Prosecutor v Charnchoengsilpakul (คดีระหว่างพนักงานอัยการ กับดารณี ชาญเชิงศิลปกุล) is a criminal case in Thailand, 2009, before the Criminal Court ("Crim-Court"), in which the Public Prosecutor, Office of Attorney-General's Criminal Division 7, ("Prosecutor") prefered a charge against Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul ("Defendant"), who is well known as Da Torpido, accusing her of having gave public speeches in a manner causing Bhumibol Adulyadej, King of Thailand, and his Queen, Sirikit, to be insulted, abhored and maligned which is an offence against the King and the Queen under section 112 of the Criminal Code, and applying for her punishment. The Crim-Court held that the Defendant is guilty of having concurrently performed three acts constituting the said offence, and senteced her to eighteen years in prison in total.

2008

 * 1) The proceedings were commenced on July 22, 2008, when the metropolitan police of Chana Songkhram arrested the Defendant at her domitory upon a warrant of arrest of the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court No. 22092/2551 dated July 22, 2008, accusing her of having committed an offence against the King and the Queen, without having previously summonsed her for inquiry.
 * 2) On the following day, Suthachai Yimprasoet ("Yimprasoet"), a lecturer attached to the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, applied to the Crim-Court for her provisional release, and offered as bail his office of Fifth-Class Government Officer. The Crim-Court dimissed the application, stating that the accusation against the Defendant was of serious nature.
 * 3) July 25, 2008, Yimprasoet lodged with the Court of Appeal an appeal against the Crim-Court's order of dismissal. August 1, the Court of Appeal affirmed the order of the Crim-Court, remarking that the offence alleged to have been committed by the Defendant is liable to such a high punishment, the provisional release of the Defendant would have an impact on the sentiment of the public, and the Defendant, if released, would commit another offence.
 * 4) August 5, 2008, the Same Sky Magazine, a Thai magazine of social criticism, issued an open letter named "Injustice against one person is that against everyone in the society" calling for the provisional release of the Defendant. About one hundred and fifty people also signed the letter.
 * 5) October 9, 2008, the Prosecuter entered a charge in the Crim-Court. On the next day, the Defendant was brought before the Crim-Court in expectation of her pleading. She pleaded not guilty and insisted her defence, the Crim-Court then ordered the opening argument to be heard on December 1.
 * 6) October 16, 2008, Yimprasoet once agaist applied to the Crim-Court for a provisional release of the Defendant, with two hundred thousand baht cash offered as bail. His application was dimissed. On that very day, Yimprasoet appealed to the Court of Appeal but the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal affirming the Crim-Court's order.
 * 7) December 1, 2008, Prawet Praphanukun ("Praphanukun"), Defence Counsel, applied the Crim-Court for a provisional release of the Defendant, the Crim-Court said there was no reason to change the same order. The next three days, Praphanukun appealed to the Court of Appeal, objecting that:
 * 8) There were no circumstances under which it could be suspected that the Defendant would tamper with evidence or abscond.
 * 9) In so far as the case is not yet final, the Defendant should not be treated as such.
 * 10) If the Defendant were not provisionally released, she, being detained in prison, would not easily set up her contention.
 * 11) In the midst of December, 2008, the Court of Appeal affirmed the order of the lower court on the same grounds.
 * 12) December 15, 2008, the Crim-Court ordered the prosecution evidence to be taken on June 23-25, 2009, while the defence evidence were to be taken on June 26-30, 2009.

2009

 * 1) June 23, 2009, the prosecution evidence was began to be taken. On that day, Phrommat Phusae ("Phusae"), judge in charge of the case, exercised his power under section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code to order the trial to be held in curia.
 * 2) On the following day, Praphanukun raised an objection against the order of trial in curia, saying it was contrary to section 40 (2) in conjunction with section 29 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, BE 2550 (2007) ("the Constitution") and applying for suspension of the trial. The Crim-Court ruled that the trial in curia is allowed by the Constitution, and dismissed the objection.
 * 3) June 25, 2008, the taking of prosecution evidence was over. Praphanukun applied for adjourning the taking of defence evidence to July 28 and August 5, and the Crim-Court granted the application. The next day, Praphanukun raised an objection against the memorandum of the Crim-Court, stating:
 * 4) โต้แย้งถ้อยคำสำนวนที่ศาลฯ จดในวันที่ 23 มิถุนายน 2552 ความว่า ซึ่งโจทก์ไม่ได้ขอให้พิจารณาลับ แต่ศาลกลับดำริเองนั้น มิชอบ เนื่องจากพรหมมาศได้เรียกโจทก์เข้าไปสนทนา แล้วจึงเรียกตนเข้าไปแจ้งว่าจะพิจารณาคดีนี้เป็นการลับ หลังจากนั้น โจทก์จึงยื่นคำขอให้พิจารณาคดีเป็นการลับ ดังจะเห็นได้จากการที่ศาลนั่งบัลลังก์และเลิกศาลในเวลา 10:15 นาฬิกา แต่โจทก์มีคำขอดังกล่าว ตามที่เจ้าหน้าที่ศาลประทับตรารับไว้ ในเวลา 11:45 นาฬิกา ย่อมปรากฏชัดว่ามิใช่ความริเริ่มของโจทก์
 * 5) โต้แย้งถ้อยคำสำนวนที่ศาลฯ จดในวันที่ 24 มิถุนายน 2552 ความว่า ซึ่งศาลฯ สั่งให้เปิดวีดิทัศน์อันโจทก์อ้างเป็นพยานหลักฐานในห้องพิจารณา โดยบังคับให้จำเลยอยู่ชมดูด้วย ทั้งที่จำเลยไม่สมัครใจนั้น ไม่ชอบ ในข้อนี้ พรหมมาศกล่าวว่า ที่มีคำสั่งทั้งนี้ ก็เพื่อให้จำเลยได้แถลงคัดค้านพยานหลักฐานชิ้นนี้ได้ เป็นประโยชน์แก่จำเลยเอง
 * 6) โต้แย้งถ้อยคำสำนวนที่ศาลฯ จดในวันที่ 25 มิถุนายน 2552 ความว่า ซึ่งศาลฯ จดว่าจำเลยขอโอกาสู้คดีอย่างเต็มที่นั้น จำเลยหาได้แถลงเช่นนั้นไม่ หากเป็นคำกล่าวของพรหมมาศเอง
 * 7) ระบุว่า ที่ต้องโต้แย้งมาข้างต้นนี้ ก็เนื่องจากจำเลยมิได้รับอนุญาตให้ปล่อยตัวชั่วคราว จึงไม่มีโอกาสตรวจสอบและแสวงหาพยานหลักฐาน และไม่สามารถถามค้านพยานโจทก์ได้เลย ประกอบกับ สนธิ ลิ้มทองกุล ("สนธิ") แกนนำกลุ่มพันธมิตรประชาชนเพื่อประชาธิปไำตย ("พันธมิตรฯ") ยังได้คำปราศรัยของจำเลยไปพูดขยายความด้วย
 * 8) June 25, 2008, Amnesty International expressed its concerns over the case, remarking that "...When a judge closes the doors on a trial it significantly raises the risk of injustice taking place."
 * 9) August 27, 2008, Praphanukun submitted a motion to the Constitutional Court requesting the Court to consider whether the Defendant's right as recognised by the Constitution has been violated by the Crim-Court's order of trial in curia, and the Court admitted the motion for trial.
 * 10) August 28, 2009, the Crim-Court rendered its judgment.