Supreme Court delivers full verdict, orders Thaksin to serve 1-year prison sentence

The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions on Tuesday (September 9) delivered its ruling on the black case number B.K. 1/2025, concerning the enforcement of the final sentence for Mr Thaksin Shinawatra, former Prime Minister and the defendant, following the original conviction issued in the red case numbers AM 4/2008, AM 5/2008, and AM 10/2009, which were decided by the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders.

The court required the plaintiff, defendant, commander of Bangkok Remand Prison, the Director-General of the Department of Corrections, and the Chief Physician of the Police General Hospital to provide factual clarifications to the court. A total of 31 witnesses testified during the investigation.

The first issue for the court to consider was whether it had the authority to investigate the enforcement of the defendant’s sentence. The court ruled that the investigation to ensure that the sentence was being enforced as per the final court decision is supported by legal provisions, as outlined in Section 61 of the Criminal Procedure for Political Office Holders Act (2019).

Although the commander of Bangkok Remand Prison and the Director-General of the Department of Corrections have the authority under the Prison Act (2017) and the Ministry of Corrections' regulations to transfer prisoners for medical treatment outside of prison, the court clarified that this must follow specific legal conditions and criteria. The transfer cannot be done without the court's oversight, ensuring that the actions align with the final sentence.

If the court finds that the enforcement of the sentence does not comply with the final conviction, the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders has the authority to investigate the matter and verify whether the Department of Corrections properly followed legal procedures when transferring Thaksin to receive treatment outside of prison and allowing him to remain outside until his release.

The case presents the next issue for consideration, which is whether the court’s investigation constitutes a re-examination of the court’s decision to dismiss the petitions filed on December 19, 2023 and February 15, 2024. It was noted that the matters brought before the court, as presented in the petitions filed by Mr Chanchai Israsenarak, a former MP from the Democrat Party, led to the issue being examined. The first petition, filed on December 19, 2023, questioned whether the Department of Corrections officers performed their duties in accordance with the law. The second petition, filed on February 15, 2024, raised the issue of whether the defendant’s sentence was suspended under Section 246 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The current issue for investigation is based on factual evidence presented to the court, which suggests that the enforcement of the defendant’s sentence may not align with the final court’s order for imprisonment. This specific issue has never been conclusively addressed by the court before. Moreover, the court’s investigation does not rely on the content of the petitions submitted by Mr Chanchai. Therefore, this investigation is not a re-examination of the court's previous decisions regarding the two petitions.

The case presents the final issue to be determined: whether the enforcement of the defendant’s sentence is in accordance with the final imprisonment order. On August 22, 2023, after the Bangkok Remand Prison took the defendant into custody under the final sentencing order, the defendant was placed in the quarantine room in Block 7, a medical facility within Bangkok Remand Prison. The prison doctor from the Corrections Department Hospital examined the defendant upon arrival, reviewing their medical history from foreign hospital records. It was concluded that the defendant had one existing condition and the overall condition was stable, with three specific medical issues identified.

The prison doctor recommended further medical checks for the defendant, including spinal nerve compression and heart disease due to the lack of specialists at the prison hospital, as well as hepatitis B due to the absence of a liver clinic. The doctor determined that the defendant should be sent for treatment at an external hospital with higher capabilities during regular working hours, but noted that the situation was not an emergency. This recommendation aligns with the views of Professor Emeritus Dr Prasit Watanapa, an expert from the Medical Council.

However, the fact revealed by the attending nurse was that, on the evening of August 22, 2023, at 10:00 PM, the defendant reported feeling fatigued, with mild weakness in their right leg, insomnia, chest tightness, and high blood pressure. The defendant’s blood pressure was recorded at 178/98 mmHg, with a heart rate of 86 beats per minute, 24 breaths per minute, 92% oxygen saturation on the fingertip, and a body temperature of 36.8°C. The attending nurse documented the request to send the defendant for medical treatment outside of prison, and the duty warden approved the transfer for treatment outside the prison.

Afterward, the Bangkok Remand Prison transferred the defendant to the Police General Hospital instead of sending them to the Corrections Department Hospital, which had an on-duty doctor that night. The Corrections Department Hospital is only 200 metres away from Bangkok Remand Prison. According to the Prison Act (1977) and related ministerial regulations, the procedures for transferring inmates for treatment outside prison are as follows:

When an inmate falls ill, they must receive a prompt examination from a doctor within the prison's medical facility, in line with Section 55(1) of the Prison Act and Ministerial Regulation Section 2(1). If the doctor deems that the inmate’s condition will not improve with treatment in the prison facility, and if a trained prison officer or medical staff recommends sending the inmate for external treatment, the inmate can be transferred for treatment outside the prison. The defendant’s transfer for treatment outside the prison, however, did not comply with the Prison Act (2017), Section 55, and the Ministerial Regulation for External Prisoner Medical Transfers (2020).

Additionally, the emergency transfer for treatment due to the defendant’s chest tightness contradicts the regulations. According to reports from the prison officer in charge, upon arrival at Police General Hospital, the defendant was taken to a special ward on the 14th floor of the Maha Bhumibol Rajanusorn Building, rather than an emergency or accident room. This conflicts with the Police General Hospital regulations regarding the treatment of criminal detainees, which stipulate that detainees or prisoners should be treated in a designated ward and emergency cases outside office hours should be handled by emergency doctors. The regulations also specify that such patients must be treated in designated rooms for suspects, detainees, or convicts, unless otherwise authorised by the Chief Physician.

Prof Emeritus Dr Prasit and Prof Dr Chaiyarat commented on the defendant’s treatment the night they were received, concluding that when both witnesses examined the medical records and documents (Pages 14 and 15 of the Medical Treatment Progress Record), they found that on August 23, 2023, when the defendant was transferred to the Police General Hospital, claiming an emergency, there was no ECG (electrocardiogram) performed and no immediate consultation from a heart specialist. It was not until August 24, 2023, over 24 hours later, that a heart specialist examined the defendant.

Dr Watchai Mingbanjerdsuk, the Director of the Corrections Department Hospital, and Dr Phongphak, a heart specialist, testified that the Corrections Department Hospital had the necessary equipment to perform an ECG, along with bronchodilator medications and antihypertensive drugs, which were used to treat the defendant. According to the hospital’s medical records from August 23, 2023, the defendant’s condition on the night of the incident was within the capability of the Corrections Department Hospital to treat. Therefore, there was no need to transfer the defendant to an external hospital. It is believed that on August 25, 2023, the defendant did not experience chest tightness but instead claimed to have the symptoms in order to provide Bangkok Remand Prison officials with a justification to transfer the defendant to the Police General Hospital.

Additionally, Dr Watchai and Dr Phongphak further stated that the defendant’s condition, as noted in the medical records from Police General Hospital since August 24, 2023, was manageable at the Corrections Department Hospital. Colonel Dr Chana, a police doctor, confirmed that since August 24, 2023, the defendant could have returned to the Corrections Department Hospital for treatment.

Thus, if the defendant’s chest tightness, as claimed, had indeed occurred, their symptoms would have improved, and the defendant could have returned to the Bangkok Remand Prison hospital or the Corrections Department Hospital from August 25, 2023 onwards.

Regarding the defendant's treatment at the Police General Hospital from August 24, 2023 to February 18, 2024, the hospital's doctors issued medical certificates to Bangkok Remand Prison and its commander, allowing the defendant to remain in treatment outside prison, based on medical certificates dated September 15, 2023, October 18, 2023, and December 21, 2023. The certificates were used as supporting evidence for requests to the Director-General of the Department of Corrections for permission to extend the defendant's medical leave beyond 30 days, 60 days, and 120 days, citing the need for treatment of surgical wounds, emergency surgery, treatment for cerebral ischemia, and surgery for cervical spondylosis, respectively.

However, the surgeries indicated in the medical certificates were trigger finger surgery and surgery for a torn right shoulder tendon due to an accident the defendant had while staying at the Police General Hospital. These were the reasons given for transferring the defendant to the hospital. The cervical spondylosis surgery had been proposed by the doctor after the defendant’s stay at the hospital, but the defendant refused the surgery. It was later revealed that no surgery on the defendant’s cervical spine, spinal cord, or nerves was performed, and the defendant was discharged from the Police General Hospital without such a procedure being carried out.

The facts suggest that the defendant was aware that he was not suffering from a critical emergency but had a chronic condition that could have been managed as an outpatient, without the need for hospitalisation. This indicates that the defendant's continued treatment outside of prison was not necessary, based on their health status and physical condition.

Moreover, it was revealed that the defendant played a role in deciding his own treatment process by refusing to undergo surgery for heart disease and cervical spine compression affecting the spinal cord and nerves. Instead, the defendant chose to receive medication for symptoms and opted for trigger finger surgery and a right shoulder tendon repair, neither of which were considered urgent. As a result, the defendant’s treatment at the Police General Hospital was extended, allowing the defendant to benefit from staying at the hospital without returning to Bangkok Remand Prison until they were released. The defendant cannot claim that the actions were solely made by the doctors and staff, as they were clearly influenced by the defendant’s desire to benefit from his time at the hospital, thus reducing the duration of their imprisonment under the final sentence.

The facts show that on August 31, 2023, a royal commute was granted, reducing the defendant’s sentence to one year of imprisonment, in accordance with the final sentence. This resulted in a sentence reduction, but the defendant is still required to serve another year of imprisonment starting from August 31, 2023. However, this does not mean the defendant’s imprisonment is over.

Since the enforcement of the defendant’s sentence was not carried out in accordance with the law, as outlined above, the process of sentence enforcement, including the suspension of the sentence, is legally ineffective. Therefore, the time spent at the Police General Hospital cannot be deducted from the defendant’s prison time. As a result, the defendant must serve another year of imprisonment in accordance with the royal command.