THAILAND: A man receives a ten-year sentence for coming to the assistance of a drunk disabled person 

THAILAND: False allegation of theft and assault; inaction and negligence by the police, the investigating officer and the state-appointed attorney
————————————————————————————-

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) wishes to draw your attention to a particularly disturbing case involving Mr Chanon Suphaphan and the inaction and negligence of the police, the investigating officer and the state-appointed attorney, in having this innocent man cleared of the crimes he was alleged to have committed.

According to the information we received, Chanon was found guilty of robbery and sentenced to the maximum of ten years in jail in November 2004, after being accused of stealing and then assaulting a drunk disabled man named Mr Thawatchai Nakthong, despite having in fact helped him following a minor motorcycle accident which took place in November 2002. The charge came despite the police having failed to take witness statements and having allowed a relative of Thawatchai’s to collect material evidence for the case. When the case was appointed to a state attorney, the lawyer displayed a complete disinterest for his client’s welfare and failed to represent him properly.

This case points to the larger issues concerning the institutions of justice and protection of human rights in Thailand. Such issues include: police failure to investigate and record evidence that may support the defence; the continued almost exclusive control of the investigation system in Thailand by the Royal Thai Police; and the role of public defenders in Thailand and their failure to properly represent their clients.

We ask that you write to the Thai Minister of Justice, so that he will intervene in this case and bring about Chanon’s release. Please call for an independent and immediate investigation into this case and ask that disciplinary action be taken against those responsible for Chanon’s charge and sentence. In particular, the roles played by the police and the state-sponsored attorney should be thoroughly scrutinised, as there appears many breaches in their conduct. Finally, Chanon must be given the right to access all records to his case in accordance with section 58 of the Constitution of Thailand; a right that is currently being denied to him by local police and the public prosecutor.

Urgent Appeals Desk
The Asian Human Rights Commission
————————————————————-
DETAILED INFORMATION:

Accused: Chanon Suphaphan; aged 20 at time of incident, now 23
Investigating Officer: Police Sub-Lieutenant Sornsaran Kaensingh, Singhburi District Police Station
Case number: Black no. 535/2546; Red no. 1113/2547; Singhburi Provincial Court

Details of the case according to Chanon and his parents:
At around 6:00pm on 24 November 2002, Chanon Suphaphan was travelling along a road near the Tantanote temple, Muang district Singhburi province, when he was hailed by a local villager who asked him to assist a man injured in a motorcycle accident. This Chanon did. He helped the injured man, Mr Thawatchai Nakthong, back to his feet and ensured that he was not seriously hurt. He did note that Thawatchai, who suffers a disability in his right leg, was incoherent and unable to stand or walk properly, but concluded that this was due to Thawatchai being drunk and not because of the accident he had just been involved in. It is reported by all concerned that Thawatchai is known locally to be a drunkard and that his state on that day was not unusual. Therefore, all parties involved, including the nine persons who witnessed Chanon assist Thawatchai, left him by the roadside with his motorcycle and went on their respective ways.

On 17 December 2002, Chanon was summoned to the Singhburi District Police Station, where he was charged with robbery of Thawatchai. He and his parents were completely surprised by the charges. Apparently, Thawatchai had complained to the police on December 2 that he was beaten and robbed by Chanon. He claimed that Chanon had asked him for three Buddha amulets, but he refused to give them. He also claimed that Chanon assaulted him at the site where he had fallen from his motorcycle. Chanon denied the allegations and was released on bail.

Disturbingly, the police did not do anything to investigate this case. On 17 December 2002 Chanon and his parents, together with seven other witnesses, went to the police station when it was time to make bail. The police, however, failed to take any statements from the witnesses and did so again when the witnesses returned on December 27. On January 10, when the witnesses tried for a third time to have their statements taken, the police agreed to take statements from just four of the witnesses.

During this time, the police were also negligent in their duties of investigating the material evidence. For instance, Pol. Sub-Lt. Sornsaran Kaensingh did not collect material evidence himself. A relative of Thawatchai took photographs of the site of the incident and Pol. Sub-Lt. Sornsaran certified them without going to the place in person. In fact, the photos were of the wrong location, around 50 metres from where the accident actually occurred.

On 3 April 2003 the public prosecutor filed a criminal case against Chanon. He was then appointed a lawyer. However, the lawyer did not study the case or meet with witnesses, but simply told them not to worry because they had a village headman, who is a government official, as a witness. At no point did he go to visit the site of the incident or speak to any of the persons concerned.

On 22 October 2004 the trial opened in Singbhuri Provincial Court and heard statements by the plaintiff and three witnesses. None of the three were eyewitnesses to the event. One was the superior officer of Pol. Sub-Lt. Sornsaran, Police Lieutenant Colonel Sirisak Naksuk. The second was Mr Nern Lukindra, a health care officer from the local public health centre who reported treating Thawatchai for injuries to his face the following day, November 25. He was not aware when he came to the court that he was being summoned as a witness for the plaintiff. The third was the aunt of Thawatchai, Mrs Samnao Indrarit, who met him the morning after the alleged assault.

On October 26, the accused and two witnesses were heard. The police presented the complaint and photographs to the court in evidence, but did not present the witness statement taken on 10 January 2003. At no time was this statement mentioned. The appointed defence attorney also did not raise this issue. Outside of the court, the relatives of Chanon asked the police why they did not present the witness statement for the defence, but the police did not respond.

On November 26 the court found Chanon guilty of robbery under section 339(3) of the Penal Code and sentenced him to the maximum ten years in jail. It also ordered the return of the three amulets, or payment of 500 Thai baht, to the injured party. Chanon has now appealed against the case. He is obtaining alternative legal assistance. Over 200 local villagers have signed a petition supporting his claim of innocence.

Meantime, approximately ten days after the judgment, Chanon’s mother lodged a complaint form at the police station regarding the missing witness statement. After one week she was contacted by telephone and told that she would not be able to see the document. A couple of days after, she lodged a second complaint form, this time at the court, to the office of the public prosecutor. Again she was refused.

AHRC observations:

The AHRC is concerned about this case because of the respective roles played by the investigating officer and the court-appointed lawyer. Their actions speak to larger issues concerning the institutions of justice and protection of human rights in Thailand.

According to the accused, his parents, the former village headman and others familiar with the case, the police failed to properly investigate the case and then did the minimum amount of paperwork necessary and left it at that. The AHRC has reported previously on police failure to follow correct procedure and the consequential damage caused by this failure on the rights of citizens.

More seriously, however, the family of the accused has alleged that they had to pester the police constantly until they were even prepared to take witness statements speaking to the position of the defendant. Following this, they did not record statements by all witnesses; they did not produce the witness statement in court; and they have not since made the said statement available to the defendant. Given that none of the parties to the case are known to have had any prior relations with these officers, their omissions appear to have been aimed at securing a conviction in response to promotion and monetary incentives.

This is a deeply disturbing conclusion. It is well known that the Royal Thai Police employs a heavy system of incentives, and that at times in recent years – such as during the 2003 campaign popularly described as the ‘war on drugs’ – these have been used very aggressively to motivate police towards catching criminals at all costs. This case raises very serious concerns as to how frequently in ordinary criminal cases the police fail to investigate and decline to record or present evidence that may support the defence simply because a non-guilty verdict does not contribute to their prospects for promotion and bonuses.

It also speaks to a matter that the AHRC has raised previously: the continued almost exclusive control of the investigation system in Thailand by the Royal Thai Police. This is a problem in the criminal justice system in Thailand that the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, among others, have admitted to publicly. The AHRC understands and appreciates that reforms are currently being introduced to give the Office of the Attorney General a greater role in investigations in cases deemed to be in the public interest. While this welcome development cannot come fast enough, the AHRC is concerned that it will not touch on common criminal cases such as the above.

Finally, of grave concern also in this case is the role of the court-appointed attorney. Like the police, he was clearly totally disinterested in the needs of his client. Under any circumstances the case raises serious questions about the role of public defenders in Thailand. The AHRC has heard many complaints about court-appointed lawyers doing little if anything to help their clients. The question that should be asked is in how many courts the public defender is actually serving the interests of the public prosecutor? Section 242 of the Constitution of Thailand, which provides for the right to have a state-appointed advocate, presumably was not drafted with the intention that the public defender act in this manner.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please send a letter, fax or email to the Minister for Justice and the authorities listed below and express your concern about this matter.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER