Watana Muangsook: Computer Crime case on criticising Gen.Prawit
Latest Update: 22/07/2021
Defendant
Watana Muangsook
Case Status
On trial in Court of First Instance
Case Started
2016
Complainant / Plaintiff
No information
Table of Content
On March 1, 2016, Wattana was detained and being charged under Computer Crime Act from posting the content on Facebook fan page named “Watana Muangsook” criticizing Gen. Prawit according to the the interview on the incidence when military officers photographed Yingluck Shinawatra, that shown sexual harassment.
Mlitary officers arrested Watana from his house on the nest day. Wataba was realeased in the evening and charged under Computer Crime Act for importing false computer data.
Defendant Background
Wattana Muangsook is a former Party-List Representative from the Pheu Thai Party. He served as the Minister of Social Development and Human Security, the Minister of Industry, and the Minister of Commerce. He also worked as the Deputy Minister of Commerce and as a member of the House of Representatives from Prachinburi province.
Apart from this present case, Wattana was also accused of defying condition of release under the NCPO Annoucement No. 39/2557, due to his Facebook posts about freedom of expression under Constitution drafting process.
Previously summoned to reporting himself to the NCPO for several times, Wattana was once again summoned in this current case, counted as his third time. The first time was due to the NCPO Order No. 3/2557 issued on 23 May 2014. Wattana continued using his Facebook account, expressing his political opinions until the time when the second summon was served on 17 July 2015.
Offense
Article 14 (1) Computer Related Crime Act
Allegation
On 1 March 2016, Wattana posted on his Facebook fan page “Wattana Muangsook” the pictures of both General Prayut Chan-o-cha and General Prawit Wongsuwon. Along with the picture, such post also featured the content which reads “EQ quite low” aimed at criticizing the press interview given by General Prawit Wongsuwon in response to the case that Ms. Yingluck Shinawatra was reportedly stalked and her photos were taken in her presence at the funeral rite. General Prawit’s interview was that “It was not an act of intimidation. The soldiers were sent for taking care of Ms. Yingluck, and the reason that her photos were manifestly taken was probably because she is beautiful.” Wattana’s Facebook post condemned such interview of General Prawit as sexism as well as expressing his shocking feelings, questioning if General Prawit Wongsuwon had never been educated by his family or his education institution to respect women. Wattna’s post further referred to General Chartichai Choonhavan’s teaching once that “Politicians have to think before speaking. If you keep silent, people will not yet know that you are stupid.”
The post went on criticizing the NCPO that “since the coup d'etat was staged, the government has been using an excuse of the necessity for harmonizing and reforming the country, the country has never been in this depressed situation before. Besides, the society in turn becomes more separated, as the government and the NCPO turned to be another player during the conflict.”
Following his Facebook post, Wattana was under arrest on the following day and charged with an offense under Section 14(1) of the Computer-related Crimes Act concerning the input into a computer system wholly or partially fake or false computer data that is likely to cause damage to another person or the public
Circumstance of Arrest
In the morning of 2 March 2016, military officers raided and searched Wattana’s house located in Prawet District, Bangkok. The officers were split into several troops, numbers of which were waiting inside the house, while Wattana was upstairs and refused to come downstairs. Some troops were in the front of the village, blocking the media from entering the area as well as ordering the village security to check all vehicles passing in and out of the village. The military primarily conducted interrogation and had a talk with Wattana for approximately 2 hours. Then, Wattana was brought into a van displaying number HorThor-2807 Bangkok with 3 other cars driving along heading to the Military Circle 11 for further investigation and attitude adjustment program.
Trial Observation
No information
Black Case
อ.1244/2559
Court
Bangkok South Criminal Court
Additional Info
No information
Reference
No information
2 March 2016
TNN reported that on 2 March 2016 around 8.00 a.m., the military arrested Wattan from his house located in Prawet District for attitude adjustment, since Wattana posted on Facebook criticizing General Prawit Wongsuwon, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense that General Prawit showed disrespect to Ms. Yingluck Shinawatra, the former Prime Minister in the event that she was reportedly stalked and her photos were taken by the soldiers during her presence at a funeral rite.
The military immediately brought Wattana from his house to the Military Circle 11 to attend attitude adjustment program.
Around 11.10 p.m. on the same day, Wattana was released and thus informed to the public that he was detained from 11.30 a.m. – 9.30 p.m. and taken to the inquiry official at the Nang Loeng police station to be informed an accusation under Computer-related Crimes Act. Afterwards, the miltary took him back home.
Wattana was told by the inquiry official to be present at the Bangkok South Criminal Court on the next day around 9.30 a.m..
3 March 2016
Manager Online reported that the inquiry officer at Nang Loeng police station brought Wattana Munagsook to the Bangkok South Criminal Court for submitting the request for the first 12-day custody, due to the incompletion of the investigation which still had 6 – 7 witnesses to be investigated. The court asked the accused whether he would object the request. He answered in denying to object such request. Therefore, the court ordered the custody to be granted for the period of 12 days as requested by the inquiry official, since this offense is the criminal offense having the severe punishment and the investigation has not yet completed.
Following such court order, Wattana submitted the request with the bail bond in cash at the amount of 100,000 Baht for the provisional release. The court considered that the accused has the domicile and there is no circumstance for him to flee. In this regard, the court ordered the provisional release with 100,000 Baht bail bond on the condition that (i) Wattana was prohibited to travel out of the Kingdom unless the approval of the court was granted and (ii) he was required to report himself to the court on all schedule.
20 April 2016
Newsroom reported that Narinpong Jinapuck, the lawyer of Wattana Muangsook, went to the Bangkok South Criminal Court for reporting to the court on behalf of Wattana according to the court’s appointment to bring Wattana to the public prosecutor. On the due date of this fourth report, the lawyer stated that Wattana was continuously detained by the military under attitude adjustment program, as a result from his expression on disapproving of the draft constitution, he was then unable to make his presence at the court. As such, the lawyer had to report to the court so as to inform the situation that Wattana did not intend to flee or breach any bail conditions, but he was detained by the military with indefinite period.
After reporting on behalf of Wattana, Narinpong revealed to the public that a military officer already informed the court that Wattan was in detention under the Head of NCPO Order No. 3/2558. Therefore, the court postponed the appointment to report again on Monday 25, April 2016.
25 April 2016
Matichon Online reported that around 09.00 a.m., Wattana Muangsook came to the Bangkok South Criminal Court for reporting himself according to the bail condition and pleading for the case where the public prosecutor at the Office of the Bangkok South Criminal Court 3, as the plaintiff, filed against him under the offense under the Computer-related Crime Act. Wattana went to the court in black suit, wearing smile on his face and appearing lively, along with his lawyer, Narinpong Jinapuck who is also the president of Lawyer Council of Thailand.
15, 16, 22, 23, 29 September 2016
The court conducted the witness hearings of plaintiff and defendant in this case.
31 October 2016
Verdict Annoucement
The court was in session around 9.00 a.m. and commence the reading the judgment as regards Wattana case immediately. The court dismissed the case on the reason that Wattana’s expression, as a cause of action in this case, is the freedom protected under Section 4 of the Interim Constitution 2014.
The court came to adjudicate the plaintiff’s claim, that Wattana’s Facebook post that the NCPO refused to return the power to the people was the false statement, because the NCPO did have the roadmap to the election as a way for returning power to the people. After considering such claim, the court then opined that as roadmap is just the framework which may or may not be happened or could be changed, the statement of Wattana, as the defendant, is thus not considered the false statement.
In addition, the plaintiff claimed that the statement posted by the defendant that the NCPO would grant amnesty to its ally was the false statement because the NCPO never grants the amnesty to anyone and there is no “amnesty” word stipulating in Section 44 of the Interim Constitution or Section 279 of the draft of Thai Constitution (i.e. Meechai version). The court rejected this claim and said that the content of Section 279 prescribes any actions of the NCPO to have the nature of liability exclusion. As such, the statement of Wattana in that aspect is not false as claimed by the plaintiff.
After the judgment hearing, Wattana unveiled that this judgment proved the reliability of the justice process and confirmed the legitimacy of the freedom of expression under the Constitution that the case should not have been brought to the court. He further stated that despite his arrest under the Head of NCPO order No. 3/2558 being unlawful, as the Computer-related Crimes Act is not the offense subject to such order, he would not be able to claim damage on anyone, because this case, albeit being accepted by the Court, will be dismissed in pursuance of Section 279 of the new Constitution anyway.
Verdict
No information