9/18/2019 Case | Freedom of Expression Documentation Center | น อ ลกฎหมายและค เส ภาพ   he concurred that they are deemed illegal as far as Section 112 is concerned. Reference In the topic “Truth Today” posted by “Bento”, the topic and its contents refer to HM the Queen and the Crown Prince. Though their names are not mentioned directly, but other descriptive names were used. Reading the whole topic, one came to a conclusion that the two Majesties have become involved with politics and unrest in the city. After giving his opinion to the inquiry officer as such, he also testified in the Court in the case against Nopphawan  (prosecutor whispered the name “Nopphawan” to him). He coul not remember her last name, but it took place in 2010. (iLaw – In this case, the accused, Nopphawan, used log in name “Bento” to post a message on Prachatai webboard, and the message is used as the tenth incriminating statemen to prosecute Chiranuch. Later on, Nopphawan was acquitted by the Court since the prosecutors failed to prove her guilt beyond doubt. For more detail, please see here.) He learned from TV news that the case was dismissed by the Court as the Court was not convinced that the accused was the offender. He did not know much detail beyond those reported by the press and according to the media, the Court did not rule if the post was lèse-majesté. In Nopphawan’s case and this case, he had not known the accused personally before. Defence lawyer’s cross examination It is heard that Mr. Pairat founded a company and is one of the board members. He has had no direct experience dealing with cyber crime. A consultant company, his company also offers consultancy on internet business. But since CCA is a new law and the company has had no experience dealing with Section 112 cases. Also, Mr. Pairat has never bee invited to speak on the offence as per Section 112. In addition, he has never attended any training on cyber crime, and is only an ordinary internet user. He has had no training on Section 112, but has only studied the issue during his time in university including reading the Supreme Court’s verdicts. Mr. Pairat said that he went to CSD on 12 March 2009 on a business about one of his clients. It was a case concerning damage to body and properties. His client was a CSD police officer. His client was a Lt. Col. police officer, but Mr. Pairat refused to disclose information on his position since the case he was handling is still pending in the Appeals Court and his client is still an active officer. The lawyer asked if his client is a police officer implicated in the enforced disappearance case of Lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit, or not. Mr. Pairat refused to answer the question citing the proper etiquette. The lawyer then asked how familiar he was with his client? He said he had known his client since 2006, though he did not get to meet him very often. Mr. Pairat’s client was an inquiry officer in the case against S. Nopphawan, though Mr. Pairat admitted that he had no idea if the inquiry officers in Chiranuch case and Nopphawan case had known or were colleagues with his client. When he went to CSD to meet with his client and was asked for help, he did not get to meet with his client yet. He was there before the time, and since the inquiry officer (in Chiranuch case) knew that he was an attorney, so he was asked to help and give opinion to help the police write case report. Mr. Pairat also replied to a question that he was not aware if Pol. Maj. Rian Buala was an inquiry officer in both cases. Only after he was asked to give comment, he learned that it was a case against Ms. Nopphawan. Mr. Pairat stated that when he was giving his opinion, he was unaware of the identity of the alleged offender in the case. The police simply showed him the post and asked for his opinion. And he gave his opinion prior to knowing who the alleged offender was. And he did not care to ask who the person was. The opinion he gave and the reading of the post took place on the same day. Mr. Pairat further stated that he was happy to help when being sought for cooperation by a government agency. As an attorney, he found it important to help and he gave his opinion at his own discretion, and the judgment shall rest with the Court. He was willing to help as a witness without caring to know who the alleged offender was. Mr. Pairat stated that it was not his duty to support any sanctions against anyone. He agreed to be a witness in the case since he believed that a perpetrator should be brought to justice and he was unaware if the two accused in these two cases were involved with any anti-monarchist movements. Normally in a criminal suit, no permission shall be given for outsiders to have a view of major incriminating evidence. And those not involved with the case have no access to such materials. Mr. Pirat said he had not got to see Exhibit J32 "Truth Today" before. He used to check out Prachatai website, but not its webboard yet, though he had been expressing in opinions in other websites or webboards, but not in political websites, only in thaijustice website. In that webboard of lawyers, there was also no notification that any posts shall be subject to verification before being uploaded. For example, in thaijustice webboard, the only condition for a poster was the person had to have accessed the webboard for more than 30 days. Regarding the evidence he was asked to comment and whether or not he thought all of the statements he saw could be deemed a violation of Section 112, Mr. Pairat said he was only asked to give his opinion exclusively on the posts made by “Bento”. And as a Thai citizen, he did not believe in what he read. For him, it was an unfounded allegation and anyone with good discretion shall not believe in such statements. But if the reader clings on to certain political ideologies, he or she might treat the information differently. It is subject to each individual’s discretion. The poster had an intention to defame HM the Queen and the Crown Prince, but after reading her post, he did not share with her opinion. If he shared with her opinion, that would have brought down the reputation of the two royalties. The lawyer asked supposing that the posts were given to an ordinary person to read, would the person lose her or his faith in the monarchy instantly?  Mr. Pairat replied that since people have different levels of maturity, some people could be misled by core leaders, heads of families, or their supervisors, and false information could be treated as true. And if there are a lot of such postings, damage to reputation may occur and people may believe and lose their faith (in the monarchy). Mr. Pairat then said that he could only recall giving his opinions in these two cases. Prosecutor’s re-examination Mr. Pairat stated that he had not trained and not represented anyone being held liable on Section 112. He only had knowledge about such a provision since his time studying in university and his personal study of verdicts made by the Supreme Court. He is an attorney and accepts to work on any cases, and does not just work for clients who are police officers or fellow lawyers. Asked by the prosecutor about how and why he was willing to help as a witness, Mr. Pairat said as a lawyer, when he was asked for help, he was willing to help. And after reading the posts, and giving his opinion, the inquiry officer asked for his permission to use his opinion in the cases. 12 February 2011 Examination of prosecution witness no. 5, Lt. Col. Dr. Wiwat Sitthisoradet, Science Office (SB3),  Forensic Chemistry and Physics Document Examinations, Criminal Record Division - No trial observation note taken https://freedom.ilaw.or.th/en/case/112#circumstance_of_arrest 13/26