Supreme Court Decisions

Interesting Article
In this case, the defendant was a creditor of the injured party, and the two had a dispute concerning a debt. Before the incident, the injured party went to the front of the defendant’s house to discuss the money and called the defendant outside the fence to speak with her.The defendant then said to the injured party, in the presence of a witness who was the injured party’s friend, words to the effect that “you are Inspector S.’s mistress; do not act important in front of me.”Although the defendant denied making the statement, the Supreme Court found the prosecution witnesses consistent and credible. The defendant’s testimony was insufficient to rebut their evidence.The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance and held that the defendant was guilty of defamation under Section 326 of the Penal Code. The Court considered the nature of the words used, the defendant’s intention, and the fact that the statement was made in the presence of a third person in a manner capable of damaging the injured party’s reputation.

Interesting Article
In this case, the injured party had previously filed a criminal complaint against the defendant’s nephew, and the parties later attended a mediation meeting at a police station. During the discussion, the defendant stated in the presence of several people, in substance: “Don’t go into my father’s house again. He goes around insulting everyone. You have the nature of a dog.”The Court of First Instance found the defendant guilty of defamation and imposed a fine of THB 10,000. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and dismissed the charge.The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision. It held that although the defendant’s words were rude and insulting, they did not amount to an imputation of fact capable of causing ordinary listeners to believe an allegation damaging to the injured party’s reputation. The statement therefore did not constitute defamation under Section 326 of the Penal Code.The Court further held that even though the defendant had pleaded guilty, punishment could not be imposed where the facts alleged in the charge.

Interesting Article
In this case, the defendant was charged with defamation by publication after broadcasting a program through YouTube and Facebook. The defendant made statements referring to the plaintiff as a pro-democracy activist who had received financial support from abroad for the purpose of dividing the country. The Supreme Court held that, when the opening video clip was considered together with the statements that followed, listeners would understand that the plaintiff was the person being accused. The statements therefore constituted an intentional imputation against the plaintiff and could not be regarded as a good-faith expression of opinion.The Court found the defendant guilty under Section 328 of the Penal Code and imposed a sentence of one year’s imprisonment and a fine of THB 112,500, with the imprisonment suspended for two years.In addition, exercising its authority under Section 332 (2) of the Penal Code, the Court ordered the defendant to publish a summary of the judgment in two widely circulated newspapers for three days and on two online news websites, even though the plaintiff had not specifically requested that form of relief.The Court interpreted the concept of publication through a “newspaper” broadly enough to include online news information accessible to the public. The judgment therefore illustrates an important development in remedies for reputational harm caused through digital media, allowing corrective information to be disseminated through the same modern channels by which defamatory content may reach the public.