Miscarriage of justice

Life is not the same for Patsakorn Singki. Even though the 30-year-old was released from prison more than one year ago, the Sing Buri native no longer enjoys visiting temple fairs like he used to do before his spell in prison.

"He used to be outgoing. He liked to dance and sing along to songs. But now he is afraid that he might be drawn into an unfortunate incident again," said Sanoh Singki, Patsakorn's 55-year-old mother.

Patsakorn was sentenced to 20 years for murder. After being behind bars for five years and one month, he was temporarily released in June 2015 after the Sing Buri court decided to retry his case when new evidence emerged indicating that he may be innocent.

Ms Sanoh is hopeful that the Supreme Court will eventually exonerate her son. However, she has noticed that prison may have had a lasting impact on her son. Patsakorn was partially deaf from birth.

"He once told me when he was in jail that he suffered a great deal of pain. He could not bear it. He could not sleep. He cried at night. He was afraid," said Ms Sanoh.

"He's more communicative, even though he cannot speak fluently. I think he keeps things to himself."

Patsakorn is now a construction worker for his uncle's company. "It's safer for him to be surrounded by family," Ms Sanoh told Spectrum during last week's interview.

Patsakorn's case is among those being re-examined by the special division for wrongful convictions under the supervision of Dussadee Arayawuth, deputy permanent secretary for justice.

LONGER IMPACT

Thitinai Patigaboot, a special case officer at the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) who works in the division, said between 2015 and 2016 around 250 complaints had been filed with the division by people claiming they were wrongly convicted.

Every Monday morning, Mr Thitinai's workstation in front of Mr Dussadee's office is full of people seeking help from his team. A piece of paper attached to the team's workstation reads "Centre for Wrongly Convicted Persons or 'Scapegoat Centre'".

Of the 20-30 cases that the division selected based on the evidence, 10 have resulted in release from prison and seven people have been legally exonerated.

Incarceration, however, tends to have a continuing impact on inmates after their release. It also creates stigma for the whole family, especially in a small community.

"Some people say my son is a murderer, even though the case is now being retried," said Ms Sanoh.

But she's unfazed by such allegations. When her son was jailed, she said her priority was to get him out.

"We spent all our money hiring a lawyer. I paid 100,000 baht up front to a lawyer who turned out to be unhelpful. I believe in justice. That's why we never gave up," she said.

Ms Sanoh is certain that her son did not commit the crime because she was with him on the night of the incident in March 2008.

That day, they went to an ordination ritual at a local temple which ended with a banquet in the evening. An inebriated man tried to pick a fight with Patsakorn, who left the banquet with his parents around 9pm.

"Around 11pm, several plainclothes police officers came to our house and asked where was Koong [Patsakorn's nickname]. My husband and I told them that he was already asleep. We had no idea why they came. They did not say anything else. Early in the morning, they came again and took Koong to the police station to test for gunpowder residue on his hand," she said.

Ms Sanoh later found out that the drunken man had been shot dead.

"A witness said that he had a fight with Koong, which was the last time he saw the victim alive."

Ms Sanoh said the police could not find gunpowder traces on Patsakorn's hand but the police explained that the residue must have dissolved after six hours.

"Why didn't they test my son that night so that they could clear him from the allegation?" she said.

The police later charged him with murder based on the witness's statement.

"The police did not check everything. They did not even talk to people in the family who could be alibis for my son."

NEW EVIDENCE

The court trial began in 2009 and ended in 2010 with a ruling to sentence Patsakorn to 20 years in jail.

"My son was shocked. He looked emotionless. I never saw him frozen like that before. I comforted him that it was better than the death sentence. We still had a chance to fight."

Ms Sanoh and her husband did everything to help their son. They visited him regularly to tell him not to give up. During the massive floods in 2011, Patsakorn was transferred from Sing Buri to a prison in Bangkok.

"We hired a van for 3,000 baht to visit him regularly," she said.

Finally, they sent a petition to then justice minister Phiraphan Sariratvipak, who assigned the case to Mr Dussadee.

Mr Thitinai said one of the crucial new pieces of evidence was the statement of a 16-year-old drug addict who confessed that Patsakorn was not the killer because he himself drove the gunman who shot the drunken man on that day.

The Sing Buri court ordered the release of Patsakorn in 2015 and a retrial of the case. It also issued an arrest warrant for the man who was suspected of shooting the victim.

"It was the first case that invoked the 1983 Act governing the retrial of criminal cases," said Mr Thitinai.

Since then, his division has used the law to retry another two cases, including the current high-profile case of former teacher Jomsap Saenmuangkhot, who was sentenced for a hit-and-run killing in 2005.

Patsakorn is now waiting for the final verdict from the Supreme Court to clear him from the charge. Until then, he has to report to the Sing Buri court every month.

Ms Sanoh and her husband, meanwhile, have to work odd jobs to repay the debt incurred during the court battle for their son. Some people still regard her son as a murderer.

"I don't ask for anything else. I am happy now that my son is back home," she said.

MISTAKES HAPPEN

"It is widely accepted that no matter how well the state runs the administration of criminal justice, in practice this cannot guarantee the state's perfect and sufficient effectiveness because there may certainly be mistakes," Pitchaya Luangrattanajaroen wrote in a law thesis.

"This is especially so for mistakes which lead to wrongful conviction and punishment of innocent persons, despite such persons not being the true wrongdoers," Ms Pitchaya wrote in the 2005 thesis studying the retrial of cases which are beneficial for the accused.

Until then, the retrial law promulgated on April 8, 1983, had not been used. "The retrial of criminal cases has restricted conditions on case trials," the thesis said. The paper called for more awareness about retrials that could amend final judgements in criminal cases.

On Jan 18, 2011, the Chiang Mai Court of First Instance ruled that Wuthichai Jaisamak, now 40, was guilty of the 2005 murder of his girlfriend, Benjaporn Pongpiew. The well-known local businessman, part owner of Warm-Up nightclub on Nimmanhaemin Road, was handed a life sentence.

In 2012, the Appeal Court backed the verdict. But in 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed the case after the court discovered conflicts in the evidence provided by the plaintiff. None of the eyewitnesses could confirm that Wuthichai was the wrongdoer, said the court.

The final verdict led to his release. Wuthichai was legally cleared of the charge and is now a free man. He has, however, wasted three years and six months behind bars for a crime he did not commit.

Wuthichai said when he was first charged with murdering his girlfriend, he was not worried. "At the time I only thought that I didn't do it, so the judicial system would prove my innocence."

NO EVIDENCE

In 2005, the body of 27-year-old Benjaporn Pongpiew was discovered on the campus of Chiang Mai University.

She had been strangled and her body had been tied to a tree. Her eyes were covered with a black scarf and her wrists tied with seat belts. Her car was parked in front of the chancellor's office. The seat belts had been removed.

Wuthichai was regarded as the prime suspect, but the local police could find no evidence to prove he was the murderer.

He thought that he had been cleared.

But one day a letter was delivered to his home saying he must report to the court as a defendant in the murder charge filed by Ms Benjaporn's family with help from the Chiang Mai Lawyers' Council.

The trial involved statements from various witnesses, including a statement from a local restaurant worker who claimed to have seen the couple having dinner on the night Ms Benjaporn was murdered.

While Wuthichai was in jail, his father Tawatchai Jaisamak didn't give up. He sought help from various government agencies. Finally, he got a response from Mr Dussadee's division, who assigned Mr Thitinai to re-examine the case.

Wuthichai had a photograph which served as an alibi for the time of the murder on Dec 12, 2005. The photo showed he was a DJ at a local restaurant at the time the murder took place. DNA tests of Ms Benjaporn's fingernails and the black scarf found no evidence that could be connected to Wuthichai.

Eventually, it emerged that the restaurant worker had lied to the court. The other eyewitness questioned by the DSI confirmed that he saw Ms Benjaporn with a girlfriend and three men in a different restaurant on the night she was murdered.

The evidence led the Supreme Court to dismiss the charge against Wuthichai. A later investigation revealed that there was a suspect named "Bomb" who was never mentioned in the previous trial, according to local media.

Bomb has reportedly left the country. He was suspected of having an affair or a business conflict with Ms Benjaporn which might have motivated the murder. The real culprit remains at large.

Wuthichai blamed his lawyer for not thoroughly pursuing his case. He claimed the lawyer failed to incorporate the DNA test and other important witnesses, which would have cleared his name.

"Only 10% of the evidence that could have proved my innocence was actually presented to the Court of First Instance," he said.

When he was branded a murderer, most of his friends faded out from his life because they did not want to be associated with a murderer, he said, adding that he was branded a criminal even before the court ruling since the media ran stories implying that he killed his girlfriend.

During his time in prison, he had to learn to get by while coordinating with his father to prove his innocence. He also did social work behind bars such as teaching yoga, guitar and English to other inmates. He also volunteered as a prison librarian and helped other inmates with their documents.

By the time he was exonerated, he had already served three years and six months in jail.

"It taught me that there is no such thing as justice. I had to fight by myself," he said.

Prison has changed him. Wuthichai is determined to spend every minute with his family peacefully. He still runs Warm-Up nightclub and expanded his business interests in Chiang Mai by opening BOX Hostel n Cafe and Baan Baan Homestay.

His advice to other scapegoats is simple: "They must help themselves to prove their innocence."

POLITICAL PRESSURE

"I personally believe that the inquiry officers want to ensure the best justice," said Asst Prof Krisanaphong Poothakool, president of the Institute of Criminology and Justice Administration at Rangsit University, referring to miscarriages of justice. "But there are factors that may restrict their work and make the process not 100% perfect."

For instance, he said inquiry officers should have a clear career system to enable them do their work independently, free of political pressure or pressure from their supervisors who would prefer to close the case.

The courts, meanwhile, must dispense a ruling only after there is absolutely no doubt about convicting the suspect.

Moreover, Asst Prof Krisanaphong urged the government to invest more in forensic science that would provide more scientific and reliable evidence than witness statements.

Thailand's current crime labs are not sufficient to look into all major crimes, he said.

"Thailand welcomes around 30 million foreign tourists who generate 2 trillion baht annually. If we spend only a tiny percentage of the foreign tourist earnings to improve the facilities and human resources for forensic science, tourists would feel safer and people would feel that they would receive justice," he said.

LIFE SENTENCE

Songkod Supmee walked away from Bangkwang Central Prison on Dec 11, 2015, after serving one year, one month and 25 days of his sentence. The 32-year-old trembled with emotion as he embraced his mother who was waiting for him at the prison with his wife.

"I am determined to cherish every moment of my life," Songkod told Spectrum on the day he was cleared of the charge of sexually assaulting a minor.

Songkod was sentenced to life but due to new evidence the Supreme Court ordered a retrial of his case. Songkod had been convicted of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl on May 23, 2009, in Nonthaburi province.

"After we worked on the case for three months, interviewing around 20 people, we realised the court may have convicted the wrong guy," Mr Thitinai said.

The strength of the new evidence prompted the court to release him pending the final verdict from the Supreme Court to clear his record.

Although Songkod is now a free man, he is unable to resume his normal life. He remains suspended from his job pending the final verdict from the Supreme Court.

"I lost my monthly income of around 20,000 baht, even though my old employer is kind enough to hire me on a daily basis on the 300-baht minimum wage until I am fully exonerated," he told Spectrum last week.

"Life behind bars is not worth it. I had to try to boost my morale with the thought that I am a good person to keep my sanity the whole time I was in jail."

Meanwhile, he has also tried to adjust to life outside prison. "I am stigmatised by society that I was a rapist."