Thread: PAD in legal battles

Verdict due on Bt245 million damage for PAD's airports seizure

The Civil Court will on Friday at 10..00 am hand down its verdict for Bt245 million damage in connection to the seizure of two Bangkok airports by the People's Alliance for Democracy in 2008.

As plaintiff, the Airports of Thailand contends for damage caused by the 13 PAD leaders who led the crowds to seize and disrupt air traffic at Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang airports.

The Nation

..........

From Twitter:

tulsathit tulsathit
Civil Court orders 13 PAD members to pay Bt522 mln in compensation for airport closure with 7.5% interest/yr /TANN /via [at]georgebkk
1 hour ago

be a cold day in hell before one satang changes hands .

Bangkok Post : PAD ordered to pay B522m to AoT

Breakingnews >

• Published: 25/03/2011 at 01:23 PM
• Online news:

The Civil Court on Friday ordered 13 leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) to pay 522 million baht in damages to Airports of Thailand Plc (AoT) for the eight-day blockade of Don Mueang and Suvarnabhumi airports in late 2008.

The court ruled on a lawsuit filed by the AoT on Nov 24, 2009.

Maj-Gen Chamlong Srimuang

The named defendants in the lawsuit include Maj-Gen Chamlong Srimuang.

The PAD core members led a large number of people to rally inside the two airports from Nov 26-Dec 3, 2008, during their extended protest demanding the resignation of the then government under Somchai Wongsawat.

The court ruled that the seizure of the two international airports forced the suspension of air services, causing both physical and commercial damage to the AoT.

The 13 defendants are, therefore, ordered to pay the AoT 522 million baht damages, plus 7.5 per cent interest starting Dec 3, 2008 when the occupation of the airports ended.

The court also ordered them to pay the AoT's legal fees in the case, 80,000 baht.

AoT president Sereerat Pasutanont said he was satisfied with the court's ruling.

.......

The Nation has a similar but much briefer report which includes Sondhi as being among the PAD leaders liable for damages.

PAD ordered to pay Bt522 million damage for airports seizure

Personally I think they should just sentence Sonthi to death....

From the blog world.....

Thai court orders PAD leaders to pay for airport siege | Asian Correspondent

By Bangkok Pundit Mar 25, 2011 5:21PM UTC

The Bangkok Post:

The Civil Court on Friday ordered 13 leaders of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) to pay 522 million baht in damages to Airports of Thailand Plc (AoT) for the eight-day blockade of Don Mueang and Suvarnabhumi airports in late 2008.

The court ruled on a lawsuit filed by the AoT on Nov 24, 2009.
…
The PAD core members led a large number of people to rally inside the two airports from Nov 26-Dec 3, 2008, during their extended protest demanding the resignation of the then government under Somchai Wongsawat.

The court ruled that the seizure of the two international airports forced the suspension of air services, causing both physical and commercial damage to the AoT.

The 13 defendants are, therefore, ordered to pay the AoT 522 million baht damages, plus 7.5 per cent interest starting Dec 3, 2008 when the occupation of the airports ended.

BP: Actually, the PM’s Office when Abhisit came to power dropped the suit against the PAD for the damage caused to Government House, but the AOT pursued the case. PAD’s defence has always been they didn’t actually close the airport. Prachatai has a translation of an ASTV Manager story of Sondhi L’s testimony from December:

The People’s Alliance for Democracy held rallies at Bangkok’s airports to pressure a corrupt government, but did not close them, Sondhi Limthongkul insisted to the court.
…
In the PAD leaders’ view, the protests at the airports did not harm the aviation business, because the airports were not closed, and airplanes were allowed to take off or land as normal. The protesters gathered in the area called the ‘land side’, which had nothing to do with the taking off or landing of airplanes, and the leaders instructed protestors not to enter the ‘air side’, as they realized that encroachment into that area was against the law, Sondhi said.

Furthermore, the protesters allowed any persons to freely enter or leave the premises of both airports. The PAD even helped negotiate for the Muslims to travel to Saudi Arabia for their pilgrimages, he said.

He said that it was Director of the AOT Serirat Prasutanond who ordered the closure of the airports. He had no idea whether Serirat’s orders were in line with the International Civilian Aviation Convention or not, but he knew that the board of the AOT reprimanded Serirat for giving the orders without notifying them beforehand.

Kom Chad Luek has details of the 13 PAD leaders and they are as follows:

1. Chamlong Srimuang
2. Sondhi Limthongkul
3. Pipop Thongchai
4. Suriyasai Katasila
5. Somsak Kosaisuuk
6. Chaiwat Sinsuwong
7. Somkiat Pongpaiboon
8. Saranyu Wongkrachang
9. Samran Rodpet
10. Sirichai Maingarm
11. Maleerat Kaewka
12. Pipob Thongchai
13. Terdpom Jaidee

The Kom Chad Luek article also notes that the prosecution had 24 witnesses, compared with 15 for the defence. The court first ruled that AOT could bring a suit (โจทก์ใช้สิทธิที่พึงมี ฟ้องศาลได้ จึงเป็นการฟ้องโดยสุจริต). The Court ruled that while the airport was a public place, the first group of PAD protesters had masks, were wielding wooden and iron sticks, and swords, and closed public roads, and searched all cars entering, causing fear.

In addition, the plaintiff showed images and had witnesses testify that Samdin Lertbutr [an aide to Maj-Gen Chamlong Srimuang] seized the control room which was located in a restricted zone (นอกจากนี้ฝ่ายโจทก์ ยังมีพยานและภาพถ่ายเป็นหลักฐานว่า ร.ต.แซมดิน เลิศบุศย์ หนึ่งในผู้ชุมนุมได้นำกลุ่มพันธมิตรเข้ายึดหอบังคับก ารบิน ซึ่งอยู่ในพื้นที่การบินและเป็นเขตหวงห้ามบุคคลภายนอ กเข้า) and this showed the intention was to close down airport services which was illegal interference.

BP: Things don’t look good for the PAD leaders on the criminal case if there are witnesses and images of the control room being seized, but then again red shirt leaders may face similar lawsuits as well….

Originally Posted by SteveCM

In the PAD leaders’ view, the protests at the airports did not harm the aviation business, because the airports were not closed, and airplanes were allowed to take off or land as normal. The protesters gathered in the area called the ‘land side’, which had nothing to do with the taking off or landing of airplanes, and the leaders instructed protestors not to enter the ‘air side’, as they realized that encroachment into that area was against the law, Sondhi said.

"The PAD has completely taken control of Suvarnabhumi Airport so any airline that wants to take off or land must seek permission from us directly,'' said Chaiwat Sinswuwong, one of the leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy.

"We have allowed one flight for the Hajj (Muslim pilgrimage) to take off, but not others'' he added.

Bangkok protesters take control of airport

^^

Originally Posted by SteveCM

The Court ruled that while the airport was a public place, the first group of PAD protesters had masks, were wielding wooden and iron sticks, and swords, and closed public roads, and searched all cars entering, causing fear.

Good to see that overly popular canard laid to rest - I've lost track of how many times PAD-supporting writers defied gravity by claiming it was all so peaceful and harmless.

Originally Posted by SteveCM

BP: Things don’t look good for the PAD leaders on the criminal case if there are witnesses and images of the control room being seized, but then again red shirt leaders may face similar lawsuits as well….

True enough - and as it should be.

Originally Posted by SteveCM

BP: Actually, the PM’s Office when Abhisit came to power dropped the suit against the PAD for the damage caused to Government House,

I wonder if someone will cite the AOT case as precedent and file civil suit against Abhisit & Co for exposing the Thai taxpayer to unnecessary cost.

Originally Posted by SteveCM

precedent

unheard of in Thai law .

^^^
Ah, yes Mid - but you're not Thai..... so how could you understand that there's actually no contradiction in those two statements?

^ Fair point - replace "precedent" with "grounds".

Come in Butterfly! Where are you????

Originally Posted by Mid

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

http://www.tannetwork.tv/tan/ViewData.aspx?DataID=1040473



Court Postpones Verdict on PAD Bus Jackers

UPDATE : 7 February 2011

The court has postponed reading the verdict for the six security guards of the People's Alliance for Democracy accused of stealing a bus with a gun in 2008.

The Criminal Court has postponed reading the verdict for the six protesters accused of stealing a public bus with a gun.

The defendants were security guards of the People's Alliance for Democracy or the PAD.


On November 24, 2008, during the PAD rally, the defendants allegedly stole a Route 53 bus at gunpoint and forced its driver to take them to the Government House.

Police shot one of the bus's tires to stop the bus and arrested all six of them.

The court has postponed delivering the verdict to March 2, as the court was overloaded with other cases.

The Criminal Court on Wednesday again postponed the reading of a verdict on six People'a Alliance for Democracy guards who seized a city bus at gunpoint and forced the driver to take them to Government House in 2008.

The court earlier planned to read its verdict in this case last year but postponed the reading to today at 9.30am, only to defer it again until March 29 at 10am, reasoning that the writing of the verdict had not been completed.


Bangkok Post : Verdict on PAD guards postponed

PAD bus hijack verdict postponed
29/03/2011

The Criminal Court on Tuesday deferred until April 29 the reading of its verdict in a case in which six supporters of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) are accused of armed seizure of a city bus in 2008, because one of the defendants is in hospital.

In this case, Thiradet Wanna, Chaiwat Thapthong, Thani Artsawang, Somchai Thongkiat, Pongpan Kachan and Somchai Hongsa are accused of forcing the driver and ticket seller of bus No 53 - with a handgun, ping pong bombs, wooden sticks and cutters - to take them to a PAD rally at Government House.

The armed hijack took place on Nov 24, 2008.

After several postponements, the court was scheduled to read its verdict today.

However, the court announced another postponement to April 29, saying that Mr Thani, a defendent, could not appear to hear the verdict because he was in Phra Nang Klao hospital and being treated for diabettes and high blood pressure.

bangkokpost.com

^

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Sondhi, however, was unable to make the trip due to a leg injury that he sustained during the April 17 2009 crackdown.

That's a new one.

http://www.tannetwork.tv/tan/ViewData.aspx?DataID=1043243



More Cases Pursued against Yellow-shirt Leaders

UPDATE : 28 April 2011

Metropolitan police investigators have petitioned the Attorney General Office to file more charges against leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy.

The targeted individuals could expect to face additional charges for their involvement in the protests at Government House and Parliament in 2008.

Deputy commander of the Metropolitan Police Division One, Police Colonel Weerawit Chanchamroen, presented a case against seven core leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy, or PAD, to the public prosecutors.

A recommendation has been made to indict the seven for allegedly sealing the gates of the Parliament House in 2008 between October 5 and 7.

The seven PAD leaders are Pipob Thongchai, Somsak Kosaisuk,Somkiet Pongpaiboon, Suriyasai Katasila, Rattchayut Sirayodhinphakdee, Sawit Kaew-wan, Amnart Phalamee and Maleerat Kaewka.


Meanwhile, Dusit police filed a report and recommended that six key PAD figures be indicted for their role in the siege of Government House between August 26 and 31, 2008.

The six are Pipob, Somsak, Somkiet, Suriyasai, Major General Chamlong Srimuang and Sondhi Limthongkul.

PAD lawyer Suwat Apaiphak presented a statement asking the investigators to postpone Sondhi's meeting with them from today to May 26.

The lawyer said Sondhi is still tied up with other engagements and is unsure about his safety.

Suwat said he will ask eyewitnesses who participated in the protests to testify on the defendants' behalf.

The prosecutors are expected to decide if the accused will be arraigned on June 28.

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

can follow this to see what the excuse will be today for postponing the verdict.

I believe the Chinless Chinki is booked in to Chalachol on Thong Lor for a blue rinse, can't let justice interfere with ones hair.....

Bangkok Post : Verdict on PAD case postponed

Verdict on PAD case postponed

• Published: 29/04/2011 at 12:31 PM
• Online news: Local News

The Criminal Court on Friday postponed the reading of its verdict on a case against six supporters of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) because one of the defendants died.

The court had ealier postponed the reading of the verdict for three times.

In this case, PAD supporters Teeradet Wanna, Chaiwat Thapthong, Thani Artsawang, Somchai Thongkiat, Pongpan Kachan, and Somchai Hongsa are charged with forcing the driver and ticket seller of a city bus No 53 with handguns, ping pong bombs, sharpened iron pipes, and wooden clubs to take them to a PAD's rally site at Government House on Nov 24, 2008.

The six were arrested after Nang Lerng police decided to shoot the tyres of the bus to stop it.

The court was scheduled to read the verdict in this case today after three postponements.

However, the lawyer of the defendants submitted a petition, accompanied by a death certificate, for the court to drop the case against Thani Artsawang, the 3rd defendant, who had died.

The court dropped the case against Thani and reschedule the reading of the verdict for May 10.

^^^ Looks as though the previous postponement was justified then. He was sick, so much so that in fact he died.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

^^^ Looks as though the previous postponement was justified then. He was sick, so much so that in fact he died.

I hope you're joking - but it looks like your serious.

This is not a court case where the lawyers will need to rethink witnesses etc. This was a VERDICT. The case already happened. Even if all but one of them died they should still read the verdict. How on earth one of the defendents dying would change anything that would require a postponement is just idiotic.

"Mr Sombat - you're guilty as charged. He's dead your honor. Ok well then no appeal I guess. Next defendent: Mr Somkiat..guilty as charged, sentenced to 3 years..."

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

The court dropped the case against Thani and reschedule the reading of the verdict for May 10.

If someone can be promoted posthumously, why not found guilty/not guilty posthumously?

In any event, if the form is to drop the case against someone who dies after the trial started (not unreasonable), why should that affect reading the verdict against the others? If the cases against the others are linked to the now-dropped case against Thani, does that mean that their cases will now be dismissed because a key element is missing? Wouldn't surprise me.

Originally Posted by SteveCM

If someone can be promoted posthumously, why not found guilty/not guilty posthumously?

Indeed , riddle me that .

The Kangaroo should become the Thai Justice system's official mascot. Good to see Amnesty International is paying such close attention to Thailand - weasel wankers.

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

The Kangaroo should become the Thai Justice system's official mascot. Good to see Amnesty International is paying such close attention to Thailand - weasel wankers.

I was very disappointed with Amnesty Intl last year.

Originally Posted by SteveCM

In any event, if the form is to drop the case against someone who dies after the trial started (not unreasonable), why should that affect reading the verdict against the others?

It shouldn't, but lets wait see what happens at the next court session it may be postponed yet again?

Originally Posted by SteveCM

If the cases against the others are linked to the now-dropped case against Thani, does that mean that their cases will now be dismissed because a key element is missing? Wouldn't surprise me.

It wouldn't surprise me either!