Court orders 1 year imprisonment, 100,000 baht fine for “Santhana” for defaming “Chuwit”

Court orders 1 year imprisonment, 100,000 baht fine for 'Santhana' for defaming Chuwit Hotel, drug use, compensation of 100,000 baht from the 100 million baht demanded, dismisses false accusation case Today (July 10), the court has scheduled a hearing for the verdict in the black case No. 2892/2565 at Tontrakul Company Limited, where Mr. Chuwit Kamolvisit, a famous former politician, is the plaintiff suing Mr. Santhana Prayoonrat, a former police officer of the Special Branch, as the defendant for the offense of false reporting, defamation of others by advertising, and seeking 100 million baht in damages. In the case between 5-8 November 2022, the defendant continuously reported false information and created false evidence to the investigation officer at Thonglor Police Station, stating that on the lobby floor of The Lobby x Chuweed, a service establishment in the Davis Hotel Corner Wing, Sukhumvit Soi 24, Bangkok, owned and managed by Tontrakul Company, there was a group of approximately 100 male and fema le teenagers who came to use drugs in the men's restroom and opened for service beyond the legal hours. In addition, the defendant also gave interviews to various media outlets, all of which were false, damaging and tarnishing the reputation of the plaintiff. Therefore, the court is requested to sentence the defendant according to the offense and pay damages to the plaintiff in the amount of 100 million baht, and for the defendant to advertise the verdict and apology on TV, newspapers, etc. for 7 days. The court considered that the facts were that on the day, time, and location of the incident, there was a party with alcohol consumption and 3-5 teenagers entering the men's bathroom. There was a witness who was an undercover agent from the defendant's side who joined and took photos of the atmosphere at the event and recorded a clip in the bathroom. However, the facts were that the witness who was the person in the clip stated that on that day, the women's bathroom was full and the boyfriend was so drunk that he wanted to vomit. The woman followed him to go into the bathroom and take care of her boyfriend. Then the undercover agent saw that he was using the bathroom in an unusual way, so she followed him in and recorded a clip. Then she saw the teenage girl walk out and use her hand to brush the tip of her nose. Then, when the group of teenagers left the bathroom and went to check the bathroom, they found a small plastic bag. It is believed that it was a gathering to use drugs. Therefore, they took the clip to the defendant to file a complaint at Thonglor Police Station. Later, the police rushed to inspect immediately, but found that there was no drug use and it was not open past the hours. When the urine test was done, no drugs were found. In this case, according to the evidence that the defendant received and believed that it was a crime, this case is not considered a false report or harassment to punish because the defendant reported the facts that he knew to the police. As for the photographic evidence at the party and the clip from the bathroom that the secret agent provided, it was not edited. It was taken from a real location, there were real people, and the event really happened. Therefore, it cannot be accepted as false evidence. As for the defamation charge, after the defendant informed the investigator to investigate but did not find any wrongdoing, when considering the news details that were presented, it was only a summary of the reporters about what the defendant had done and where and what the results were, but in some news agencies, the defendant gave interviews in detail, saying that the teenagers all knew that they were here and no one dared to investigate. The hotel owner was a hardline, making people think that there was wrongdoing and the hotel owner was complicit. This interview was given after the investigators had investigated and no wrongdoing was found. The defendant should have waited for the relevant officers to take responsibility. Even though the defendant did not mention the hotel owner by name, many people understood that he meant the plaintiff. Furthermore, the defendant already knew that the reporters would present the news to the public. Therefore, the plaintiffs 1-2 were damaged, despised, and their reputations were damaged. Therefore, the defendants were guilty of defamation by advertising. Even though the defendants claimed that they were providing in-depth information to the public and wanted to prevent drug trafficking or use, they had to prove that the accusations were true. However, up until now, no charges have been filed against the hotel or the police have found any wrongdoing, so the punishment cannot be waived. As for the plaintiff who requested the court to order the defendant to publish an apology and the judgment in the media continuously, the court has no power to order an apology, but can order the summary judgment to be published for 5 consecutive days at the defendant's expense. As for compensation, this case is a civil case related to criminal. As such, when the fac ts are accepted that there was an act of defamation by advertising, causing damage to the plaintiffs 1-2, reputation, and a violation, but the plaintiff did not describe how much income the defendant lost after the defendant gave the news, the court therefore considered ordering the defendant to pay compensation for damages in the amount of 100,000 baht. The court ruled that the defendant was guilty under Section 328 and sentenced him to 1 year in prison and a fine of 100,000 baht. However, since the defendant had no prior convictions, it was deemed appropriate to give him a chance to be a good person. The prison sentence was suspended for 2 years, he was ordered to pay 100,000 baht in civil damages, and a summary of the verdict was published in the media for 5 consecutive days. Mr. Santhana said after the court's verdict that today the court dismissed the case against him for false reporting, but sentenced him to 1 year for defamation by advertising. The court was merciful and suspended the sentence for 1 year because the court saw that what he did was for the public benefit, not for personal gain. He is preparing to bring this reason to fight the case in the appeal court. Personally, Mr. Chuwit and I have filed many lawsuits. I have filed 10 lawsuits against Mr. Chuwit, but in the past, Mr. Chuwit asked to postpone the case, claiming that he was sick. I would like to tell Mr. Chuwit to take good care of his health so that he can fight the case in court again because he and Mr. Chuwit are considered a good match. Source: Thai News Agency