By THE SUNDAY NATION
The ex-judge, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Yingluck’s strong line of defence was that she had no “special intention” to cause damage to the state or irregularities to the project.
This defence, the source pointed out, would be similar to that of former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat and three other defendants in another case. The four defendants were all acquitted by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders.
According to the former judge, the point of consideration for the court is whether Yingluck had the intention to cause damage or cause irregularities to the rice-pledging scheme. “In Yingluck’s case, she had no special intention to cause damage to the state or allow irregularities to happen,” the source said.
The ex-judge said the court would consider whether Yingluck had done sufficiently in preventing corruption relating to the project, and whether it was necessary for her to end the project after getting written warnings from the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the Auditor-General’s Office regarding the irregularities.