Throwing the Flag into the River
Defendant
Case Status
Case Started
Complainant / Plaintiff
Table of Content
Krisada S. participated in a protest in Chiang Mai on the day of the military crackdown on the Red Shirt protest in Bangkok. Out of dissatisfaction, Krisada threw objects and a yellow flag into the river. He was recorded in a video and his name was publicized. He and his family were threatened. He was later accused by the police for damaging public property and insulting HM the King.
Defendant Background
Krisada S. (age 49) makes a living from selling ready-cooked food in a fresh market in Chiang Mai together with his wife. They have three school-age children.
Krisada disapproved of the coup d'état of 19 September 2006 which made him start following political news. He also started wearing red t-shirts to join pretests against the Draft Constitution of Thailand 2007and started joining Red Shirt protests without belonging to any particular political groups. He often participated in Red Shirt protests in Chiang Mai and big protests in Bangkok.
Offense
Allegation
Krisada participated in a Red Shirt protest at Nawarat Bridge in Chiang Mai on 19 May 2010 which was the date of the military crackdown on the Red Shirt protest in Bangkok, where there were disturbances as a result of the government’s willingness to use violence, such as burning car tires and a fire truck. Dissatisfied with state officials’ use of violence in Bangkok, Krisada threw nearby objects, and threw a yellow flag with the symbol of the King of Thailand into the river. Krisada’s actions at that time were recorded on video. Government official therefore accused him of damaging public property and lèse majesté.
Circumstance of Arrest
Krisada decided to surrendered himself out of concern for his family.
Trial Observation
Black Case
Court
Additional Info
The video clip of Krisada which was publicized on the internet can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyV2ZT0hxTY
Reference
After 19 May 2010
The video clip of Krisada throwing a yellow flag into the river was disseminated in many forms: television, news websites and in the online world. The person who took the video is unknown. The names and personal details of Krisada and his family were also disclosed by persons dissatisfied with his actions. Abusive comments were posted on news reports and websites threatening physical violence if he was encountered in person.
26 May 2010
Chiang Mai Provincial Police of issued an arrest warrant for damaging public property but there was no accusation of lèse majesté. Krisada decided to evade detention be leaving Thailand. He intended to flee to a neighbouring country until the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) ended operations and the wave of attacks in various media abated before returning.
23 December 2010:
Krisada decided to return and surrender out of concern for his family. His wife was followed, telephone calls were intercepted and the house was searched under a search warrant. In addition to the original charge, the police added a charge under Article 112 of the Criminal Code. Krisada surrendered after contacting the police in advance and posted a land title worth 8.5 million baht as bail and was bailed for the police investigation.
June 2011
Krisada was informed by the Public Prosecutor to report to the Office of the Chiang Mai Provincial Public Prosecutor. He submitted an appeal to the Public Prosecutor to examine additional witnesses and evidence. Since then at every appointment for reporting, the public prosecutor ordered a postponement of the decision to bring charges. At the latest appointment in March 2012, public prosecutor postponed the decision to prosecute again and set the next appointment for 23rd May 2012.
22 May 2014
The prosecuter submitted the case to the Chiang Mai Provincial Court.
18 August 2014
Chiangmai Provincial Court set a schedule to conduct hearing due to the defendant’s petition to postpone the trial because he was suffering from stroke, which caused the defendant unable to talk, to communicate and to defend the case during this time.
Dr. Pratchayapon Kammuang-lue is a Podiatry, Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Medicine specialist, practiced for Maharajah Nakornping Hospital, testified that since the beginning of 2013 until present, she has diagnosed and advised the defendant. The defendant was suffered from brain injury (BI), and had brain surgery from previous doctors. Dr. Pratchayaporn told that she was a medical evaluator for the defendant’s daily activities, and there were physiotherapists concerned with the promotion of mobility.
Dr. Pratchayaporn testified that the defendant had aphasia. The speech wasn’t understandable, and the defendant couldn’t comprehend questions. The defendant’s conditions were caused by the damage of the left cerebral hemisphere, which affected the right hemisphere functions, and the ability to control speech and communication. Over the past year, the defendant has improved the mobility and could walk with a cane. But there was little improvement on speech and communication. In general, the speech and communication skills would gradually restore by itself. But the slow progress could take years for the defendant to recover. This length of time was uncertain. It depended on an individual, therapies and encouragements from the family.
3 September 2014
The Court conducted a hearing from Dr. Kittipong Sanitwannakul, a psychiatrist, practiced for Suanprung Hospital.
Dr. Kittipong testified that the defendant was suffered from hemiplegia, which weakened the entire left side of the body. The left cerebral hemisphere was damaged. Normally, the left hemisphere functioned the thinking, language, planning and controlling the body of the opposite side, which was the right side. This was caused by apoplexy, which damaged the particular cranial nerves. Therefore, the defendant couldn’t recognise oral language sounds, nor couldn’t speak properly.
Neither spoken nor written communications, the defendant’s listening, understanding, and memories were still troublesome. The defendant’s abilities to think, to plan, to estimate, to numerical calculation, and to decision making weren’t functional at all.
Dr. Kittipong further testified that according academic principles, insanity, which was brain conditions, could be generalised in three categories; Psychosis is a psychiatry condition. The patients would act madly, violently and unconsciously. Intellectual disability was caused since birth, or early childhood development, for example mental retardation and cerebral palsy. Mental infirmity was a condition when a normal person infected diseases or had an accident, which damaged the brain. This included old people who had amnesia. The defendant’s condition was within the scope of mental infirmity. Other than this condition, the defendant also had complication diseases, such as, hypertension, which had to be examined regularly. Dr. Kittipong himself had testified many alike-conditioned patients. The Court would temporarily drop the case, and would examine the defendant’s condition every 6 months or 1 year.
The Court informed both parties and scheduled on 1 October 2014, at 10.00 hrs. for receiving the court order weather to temporarily drop this case or not.
1 October 2014
At Chiang Mai Provincial Court, around 11.35am, the court read an order that due to the sickness of the defendant which effect the ability to communicate as an ordinary person. The doctor testified that the defendant has a mental infirmity which case by brain injury from the accident. This could be considered as one type of insanity according to Criminal Procedure Code Section 14. While the defendant is under medical treatment, therefore, ge cannot give a testimony.
The defendant shall be protected from the state to defend his case during the trial which is a fundamental rights. At the moment, the defendant is not able to defend his case, the court shall temporarily suspend the trial according to Criminal Procedure Code Section 14. The court also gave an order to send the defendant to Suanprung Hospital and asked the psychiatrist to report to the court within 180 days and sent the court order to the hospital as well.
The court also set a schedule to examine the symtom of the defendant again on 22 April 2015, 10.00am.