Evidence given to court over temple deaths was one-sided: lawyer

Are you surprised at the court ruling that six people were killed by soldiers?

No, because the prosecutor never asked Abhisit [Vejjajiva, the former PM] and the previous government what evidence they had, while the other side gave everything.

The report of the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand, led by Kanit na Nakhon, concluded that there was a gunfight between "men in black" and security officials in Wat Pathum Wanaram. The court ruling did not mention the men in black, [it] just simply said officials fired. That’s obviously from the one-sided evidence.

The court has no right to call or request particular documents. It is not the court’s duty. The court considers matters according to the witnesses and evidence submitted during the police investigation, while the prosecutors did not bring military officers or other witnesses to testify in a way that was useful for consideration.

Most of the case tended to be similar to this. I predicted this could make trouble for Abhisit, as he was not in a position to give his account to the prosecutor.

If he were still in power, he could have given his account or asked the prosecutor to put his information in the case?

Yes, he could commission me in the legal team to provide the other side of the information. If so, the outcome of the ruling would have been in our favour. We have the report of the [Kanit] commission, [and of the Department of Special Investigation]. The 110-page DSI report signed by its chief Tarit Pengdit even mentioned "men in black". In fact, the DSI has concluded the case and submitted it to prosecutors and it is already in the court. Ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was charged as the leader, together with the "men in black". Why didn’t the prosecutor propose these reports to the court in this case?

Is it possible to bring these reports to the court? Or can they only be presented by the prosecutor?

Yes, it depends on the intention. If I were a lawyer for a plaintiff and wanted him to be jailed, I could just simply ignore some important evidence, so that person would be jailed, definitely. This is the nature of prosecution, so, to be fair, [they] should give a chance to the former government.

The current government should have a policy to do this?

Why would they want to do that? The prosecutors’ evidence is in favour of them. But this is not a final judgement. The court ruling just said soldiers fired at them, but who exactly [did this] and who made such instructions to the soldiers? This ruling is very far from Abhisit and Suthep (Thaugsuban, former deputy PM). I think it will be similar to the case of Phan Khamkong [a taxi driver shot dead at an Airport Link station on May 15, 2010].

If the government files charges against Abhisit and Suthep, we will file a case back of [making] a false charge. [The former leaders] did not make any instruction to soldiers to kill people. It was not a policy. Every instruction was made in writing. We can prove that.

As the court ruled out "men in black" being involved in these deaths, does the ruling have implications for other cases?

Not at all, as the court ruled it was the duty of inspectors to find out more – who ordered the [troops to] fire and who exactly fired. If they point a finger at us, we will say we did not get involved. There was a high possibility that the "men in black" were at the scene. Like the case of Phan Khamkong, we have many points to argue in factual and legal aspects. The procedure is very long and takes time. Our main argument is that the DSI has no authority to file the case – it should be a task for the anti-graft body, since Abhisit and Suthep were holders of political positions then.

Have these moves by the prosecutor and DSI made trouble for you?

I don’t mind what they do. Abhisit and Suthep are ready to face trial. Both of them don’t want the so-called reconciliation law. If we are sued, we’ll sue back; that’s it. We don’t know whether the prosecutor will agree with the DSI. We have already told them that the DSI had no authority and if the prosecutor follows suit, they will take the same risk. I think the prosecutor is mature enough, they should not follow the DSI’s lead.

Do you think they want to bring the former PM to jail?

Of course they want that, but both of them aren’t frightened. In my profession as a lawyer, if I know my clients are wrong, I have no faith to defend them. If I know they are innocent, I have a will to help them. This is my spirit.

But the red shirts said Abhisit’s hands were dirty with blood.

That’s what they said, but I believe more than 60 per cent of those people know the former prime minister is innocent. He was smeared – they know, [or] why don’t they know?!

If Abhisit and Suthep survive this, will it be because of an "angel" lawyer or an "invisible hand" interfering with the legal process?

I don’t believe in the "invisible hand". Neither of them has ever consulted or asked me to lobby any judges. If we lose, we would appeal to an upper court. We have faith in the rule of law. Don’t talk about the "invisible hand" – it does not exist. My hand might have some part, but all in all, because they are innocent. They did not order [troops] to kill the people.

At the end, if there is no way out, is it possible to cut an arm (Suthep) to save the head (Abhisit)?

I’ve never had such an idea.