Court names 81 red shirts in judges' intimida
Play
The Office of the Constitution Court yesterday filed six separate police complaints naming some 81 red shirts as suspects on charges related to offending and intimidating the high court in connection with the verdict on the charter-amendment bill.
The complaints were lodged at the Crime Suppression Division.
“The filing of complaints is the only way to shield the judiciary against intimidation,” court spokesman Somrit Chaiwong said.
In the first complaint, red-shirt leader Yotwarit Chooklom, aka Jeng Dokjik, was named for allegedly offending the high court’s judges in the line of duty as per Articles 136 and 198 of the Criminal Code. He is also charged with intimidation by inciting fear as per Article 392 of the Criminal Code.
For the second complaint, red-shirt leader and Pheu Thai MP Kokaew Pikulthong is named for coercion by threatening the use of force in order to obstruct judicial review. His alleged violations fall under Articles 139, 140, 198 and 292.
The third complaint cites charges against Pheu Thai MP and red supporter Prasit Chaisrisa. The charges are based on Articles 136 and 198.
In the fourth complaint, red-shirt Anurak Jentawanit is named for allegedly fabricating charges against the judges in connection with his police complaint filed on July 5.
The charges against him are based on Articles 172, 173 and 174.
In the fifth complaint, a group of 26 red shirts face fabrication charges as per Articles 172, 173 and 174 after filing a complaint against the judges at Khu Khot police station, Pathum Thani, on July 14.
In the sixth complaint, red ally Wuthipong Kotchathamkhun and some 50 unidentified red shirts have been named as suspects for offending the judges in the line of duty. Their charges, based on Articles 83, 136 and 198, stemmed from protest activities at the high court building on July 16.
In a related development, Somrit said the verdict and individual opinions of eight judges clearly spelled out the conclusion of the judicial decision on charter change.
The eight judges relied on two approaches to form their individual opinions before reaching the same conclusion, he said.
In the first judgement, four judges – court president Wasan Soypisudh, Boonsong Kulbupar, Chat Chonlaworn and Udomsak Nitimontree – issued the opinion that Article 291 of the Constitution gives Parliament the mandate to amend the charter either by provision or in whole, whichever is deemed necessary.
In the second approach, the remaining four justices – Charoon Intachan, Chalermpon Ake-uru, Nurak Marpraneet and Suphot Khaimuk – found that Article 291 allows Parliament to amend specific charter provisions but not to overhaul the entire charter.
The judges drew the same conclusion to dismiss the case on grounds there was no evidence of a threat to topple the political system. Although the eight judges chose two approaches to form a decision, the verdict had outlined the meshing of the two approaches.
