Prosecutors are confident they can convince the Appeal Court that construction tycoon Premchai Karnasuta was present when a rare black leopard was killed.
The chief prosecutor in the high profile poaching case says his team believe they have enough evidence placing at the scene when the big cat was shot in Thungyai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary in Kanchanaburi's Thong Pha Phum district in February last year.
Last month, Mr Premchai was sentenced by the Thong Pha Phum Court to 16 months in jail for the illegal possession of a dead pheasant and weapons, and supporting poaching -- but he was acquitted of wrongdoing in connection with the black leopard, which was blamed on other defendants.
Somchet Amnuaysawasdi, secretary to the deputy attorney-general, who also heads the working group on the black leopard case, said that his team is now in the process of reviewing and studying the Thong Pha Phum Court's ruling. Once it is finished with this task, his team will send an appeal to the higher court highlighting their points of disagreement.
"Based on the evidence we have, we're still confident that Mr Premchai was involved in killing the black leopard and was not merely a supporter as ruled by the court, Mr Somchet told a seminar on "Lessons Learned from the Black Leopard Verdict", hosted by the Sueb Nakhasathien Foundation and its alliances at the Bangkok Art and Culture Centre.
He said the court's ruling did not state other important points in the case, especially information about the killing zone. Bullets found on the ground at the scene were matched to a gun owned by Mr Premchai. Meanwhile, DNA samples collected from the carcass of the black leopard and Mr Premchai's faeces will also help place the tycoon at the scene.
Mr Somchet said although Mr Premchai had a personal faeces storage unit at his camp, which his maid usually emptied at a toilet at a nearby camp, a pile of his faeces was found near the scene of the killing which was only 750 metres away from the camp. This could be seen as solid evidence that he was present at the crime scene.
The court believed Mr Premchai was not at the crime scene and had nothing to do with the hunter's actions.