Top court dismisses defamation case against British activist Hall

The charges in the appeal filed by the Office of the Attorney-General and Natural Fruit Co Ltd are related to an interview Hall gave to Al-Jazeera TV in Myanmar in April 2013, in which he spoke about his earlier criminal prosecution by Natural Fruit Co. 
Courts of both first and second instance had already dismissed this case on grounds of a flawed and unlawful interrogation procedure and that the allegedly defamatory act had been committed in Myanmar. 
“Following dismissal of the case, I have no choice but to now launch counter-litigation against Natural Fruit, the prosecutor, police and the Attorney-General for unlawful prosecution and perjury. I do so with deep regret and not at all in anger or through any desire for personal retribution. It is necessary to launch these counter prosecutions simply because I must defend myself fully against judicial harassment by Natural Fruit that shows no signs of abating,” Hall said in a written statement.
Sonja Vartiala, executive director of Finnwatch, said: “The Supreme Court’s ruling is of course a huge relief but it does not vindicate Hall’s earlier conviction and suspended prison sentence in a case also brought by Natural Fruit less than two months ago. However, the campaign of judicial harassment that has been waged against Andy Hall for almost four years now has already sadly been successful. As many have feared, this campaign has also had a negative impact far beyond the case of Andy himself. 
“We have heard from a number of migrant workers and activists how they are now deeply afraid to speak out on abuse they face from Thai employers after Hall’s recent conviction. 
“A real stain has been placed on Thailand’s reputation, in particular as an acceptable country to do business in. Companies which source from Thailand need to think really hard whether they can be confident that they can adequately monitor their supply chains when the voices of workers and those who defend them are being chillingly silenced,” she added in the media statement.
On September 20, the Bangkok South Criminal Court found Hall guilty over charges of criminal defamation by publication and according to the Computer Crime Act brought by Natural Fruit. He was subsequently sentenced to four years in prison, reduced by one year and suspended for two years and ordered to pay a fine of Bt200,000, which was reduced to Bt150,000. 
Once the fine was paid by the Thai Union Group, the Thai Tuna Industry Association and Finnwatch, Hall was released from temporary detention, his passport returned and restrictions on his freedom of movement removed. The guilty verdict drew stern criticism from around the world including from the United Nations, the International Labour Organisation, the European Parliament and European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom.
Hall and his legal team are preparing to appeal the Bangkok South Criminal Court conviction on grounds of both fact and law, but have yet to receive a written copy of the verdict to be used as the basis of the appeal. 
In relation to the Al-Jazeera interview, the Supreme Court ruled that the verdict would have no impact on the suspended prison sentence Hall was given on September 20.
Two civil defamation claims for damages of Bt400 million brought against Hall by Natural Fruit are still awaiting the resolution of the two criminal cases. Natural Fruit filed all four cases against Hall following the publication of the Finnwatch report “Cheap Has a High Price” in January 2013. Hall coordinated field research and conducted migrant worker interviews for the report, which outlined workers’ allegations of serious labour rights violations at the company’s pineapple processing plant.