iLaw HOME
  • The cases against Freedom of Expression

Da Torpido

Latest Update: 04/06/2021

Defendant

Daranee Chancherngsilpakul

Case Status

Judgment / End of trial

Case Started

2008

Complainant / Plaintiff

No information

Table of Content

On 22 July 2008, Daranee or Da Torpedo, anti-coup activist who usually spoke against the coup at the anti-coup demonstration site was arrested by the police at her house. The police later inform Daranee that she was accused to made statements that deemed to be lese majeste offenses 3 times.

Daranee was remanded in custody since her arrested, all attemps to bail were rejected. The court set to examine her plea on 1 December 2008 and began witnesses examination on 23 June 2009, Daranee hence remanded in custody for almost a year before the examination of witnesses were began.

In December 2009, the Criminal Court found Daranee guilty under Lese majeste law in three different count, she was sentenced to 5 years in prison for each count, alltogether 15 years. Daranee appealed the case, the court of appeal affirmed verdict of the Court of the First instance sentenced Daranee to 15 years in prison in June 2013. Daranee decided not to further appeal the case, the case hence concluded.         

In August 2016, the Royal Pardon decree was issued. Daranee was listed as detainee that set to be release prior to her actual prison term, she was released on 27 August 2016. Overall Daranee served 2,958 days in prison.

Defendant Background

Ms. Chancherngsilpakul  is also known as “Da Torpedo”, former journalist at Pimthai Newspapers and Thai Sky Cable TV. Before detention, Ms. Chancherngsilpakul  was a political activist from Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD), former name of United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD).

Offense

Article 112 Criminal Code

Allegation

Da Torpedo was accused of making a public speech at Sanam Luang with words deemed transgressing the Lese Majeste law for 3 times on 7, 13 June and 18-19  July 2008.

Circumstance of Arrest

22 July 2008 Ms. Daranee was arrested but refused all charges. Her bail was denied. 

 

Trial Observation

No information

Black Case

 อ.3959/2551

Court

Criminal Court

Additional Info

No information

Reference

No information

 

22 July 2008
Ms. Daranee was arrested but refused all charges. Her bail was denied. 
 
25 July 2008
Assistant Professor Suthachai Yimprasert, a scholar from Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University submitted an appeal for bail placing his high-level civil servant position as well as deposit.
 
1 August 2008
The Appeal Court denied the bail request considering that the penalty is high, contained a long jail term and effect the public morality. 
 
9 October 2008
1-week before the 84 days maximum comittal period completed, the prosecutor filed the case to the Criminal Court under the lèse majesté charges.
 
16 October 2008
Assistant Professor Suthachai Yimprasert submitted the bail request for Ms. Daranee’s temporary release placing THB 200,000 as deposit. Both the Court of First Instance  and the Court of Appeal denied the request on the same day. 
 
1 December 2008
Mr. Prawes Prapanukul, the case’s lawyer, requested the Court of First Instance for Ms. Daranee’s temporary release. The court denied the request saying there was no reason to change its previous decision not to allow bail. 
 
4 December 2008
The lawyer appealed the Court of First Instance  decision; later in mid-December, the Court of Appeal also confirmed the Court of First Instance decision and lifted the bail request. 
 
23 June 2009
The prosecution hearings began. Judge Prommas Pusang ordered the procedure to be closed and held in secrecy using Article 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
 
25 June 2009 
Mr. Prawes, the lawyer, submitted a request for the Court of First Instance to pause the court trial since the closed hearings standing against 1.) Article 40 (2)  of the Constitutions that guaranteed fundamental rights to fair trial including the guarantee of opened court trial as well as the rights to information 2.) Article 29 of the Consitution that guaranteed the Rights and Freedom under  the Constitutions. If there is  special rule to limit these rights and freedom, the restriction must be proportional and could not interfere with the spirit of law to protect the two elements.
 
Further, Mr. Prawes also requested the Court of First Instance to submit the Constitutional Court a request to consider if Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code standing against the Constitution. The Court of First Instance lifted the request on the same day given reason that the closed trial was not against the Constitution since Ms. Daranee had already been accompanied by her lawyer. The hearings then continued.
 
28 August 2009
The Court of First Stance sentenced Ms. Daranee for 3 counts with 6-year jail term each, resulting her 18-year imprisonment in total. 
 
Later on, the defendant lawyer appealed.
 
9 February 2011
The Appeal Court agreed to re-submit the request for the Constitutional Court to consider if Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code  against the Constitution. The Appeal court also lifted the earlier verdict while awaiting for the Consitutional Court decision. Lastly, the court ruled that the court trial will start over again.
 
17 October 2011
The Constitutional Court ruled that Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not against Article 29 and 40(2) of the Constitution. One of the reason stated that Article 178 of the same law allowed involved companies; for example, the plaintiff, the prosecutor, the guard, the defendant and their lawyers, experts as well as translators to present at the court. This, may restrict some rights but it is still proportional to guarantee fair trial. 
 
The Criminal Court then arranged the hearings to be re-conducted again.
 
15 December 2011
The Criminal Court read the new verdict. Ms. Daranee was sentenced for 3 counts, 5-year imprisonment each. She will now serve 15-year detention in total. 
 
16 March 2012
The Appeal Court denied the bail request.
 
 

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