TV reporter to sue Phetchaburi red shirt for intimidation
Play
A television news reporter on Friday vowed to sue a red-shirt leader for intimidation after public prosecutors decided not to try the case.
Somjit Nawakruasunthorn of Channel 7 said she wanted to prove wrong the theory about the victor getting justice after public prosecutors dropped charges against Pornthip Paksanont, a local leader of the red shirts from Phetchaburi.
“I am not carrying a personal grudge but I want to set an example and show that a wrongdoer should be punished and not rewarded,” she said in reference to the red shirts sharing the spoils of the election victory and getting away from the claws of law.
Somjit filed a police complaint last year charging that Pornthip had threatened her after she posed tough questions to Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.
The red shirts regarded Somjit as being hostile to the prime minister and Pornthip sent 47 e-mail messages to her fellow red shirts asking them to “return the favour” to the reporter.
Somjit said the e-mails could be construed as a threat designed to intimidate her in the line of duty.
On Thursday, Dusit Police, who were in charge of the complaint, notified her of the prosecution’s decision to drop the case.
In the prosecution review, the alleged intimidation in question fell under Article 392 of the Criminal Code. Under this provision, an offence has been committed once the intimidating message has been conveyed to the victim.
In this case, Pornthip circulated her message among “friends” on her contacts list and did not intend for the victim to read it. Somjit came across the message by chance, which led her to identify the sender as Pornthip.
The discovery of the message can be construed as a preparation stage and not the actual act of intimidation as per Article 392, therefore there is no merit to try the case, the prosecution review said.
Somjit said she would initiate her court battle as an individual case without the state’s involvement.
She said she disagreed with the public prosecutors’ legal interpretation, adding that the reasoning was absurd because the citing of Article 392 means she must get hurt or killed in order to prove intimidation.
