Supreme Court sentences PAD leaders

Supreme Court sentences PAD leaders

Demonstrators turn up in force at the People’s Alliance for Democracy rally at the Makkhawan Rangsan bridge on June 11, 2008 after Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej warned of a crackdown. (File photo: Apichart Jinakul)
Demonstrators turn up in force at the People’s Alliance for Democracy rally at the Makkhawan Rangsan bridge on June 11, 2008 after Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej warned of a crackdown. (File photo: Apichart Jinakul)

The Supreme Court has sentenced to eight months in prison three out of nine leaders of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) indicted over the group’s protest against the Samak Sundaravej government in 2008.

The three were Chaiwat Sinsuwong, Amorn Amornrattananont, and Therdphum Jaidee, according to the ruling read on Tuesday.

They were indicted along with six other defendants in December 2015 on charges of sedition, inciting public chaos and illegal assembly, among other charges involving the use of weapons when they led PAD protesters at various government agencies between May and October of 2008.

In July 2017, the Criminal Court cleared the first six defendants of the charges, saying they were redundant. The six were Chamlong Srimuang, Sondhi Limthongkul, Pibhop Dhongchai, Somkiat Pongpaibul, Somsak Kosaisuk and Suriyasai Katasila.

However, the court filed against Chaiwat, Amorn and Therdphum for illegal assembly but suspended handing down the sentence for two years.

The prosecution appealed against the ruling.

On Jan 30, 2019, the Appeal Court stood by the lower court’s decision regarding the first six defendants and resolved to dismiss the charges against the three defendants as well, on the grounds that the charges brought against the group were redundant.

The prosecution once again appealed against the ruling.

The Supreme Court acquitted the six defendants yet handed down the prison sentence to the aforementioned three defendants.

Speaking before hearing the ruling yesterday, Chaiwat said he wasn’t worried about how it would turn out as there were only two possible results, go home or go to jail.

He insisted the PAD’s protests were peaceful and were allowed under the constitution.

He also insisted the PAD protesters at that time rallied without using any weapons or violence as accused.

Unlike the current anti-government movements that have resorted to violence, the PAD always gathered and rallied without using any weapons, he said, adding that he hoped the Supreme Court would make this ruling the norm for judging on peaceful protest cases.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (5)