The (in)justice system in Thailand continues to behave as the junta’s messengers.
The court agreed with the other court that releasing New Democracy activist Jatuphat was impossible. They concurred that the activist had mocked the authority of the state without fearing the law and is facing other charges for violating the Public Referendum Act and the military junta’s ban on political gatherings.
The court stated that “the suspect could try to interfere with evidence or jump bail if he is released.” He certainly didn’t jump bail when he briefly had it earlier.
Sawatree Suksri from Thammasat University’s Faculty of Law “pointed out that one goal of bail is to allow defendants to fight their case fairly.” That’s the point. The junta, the palace and the courts are not interested in justice or legal fairness.
She said that “[b]ail allows defendants to seek and develop evidence for their case more freely, and to consult with their lawyer privately.” That’s the point. The junta, the palace and the courts are not interested in justice or having a defense against lese majeste. They just want to lock defendants up for years.
Sawatree says that “bail assists defendants to seek justice to the best of their ability, bail rejections should be an exception rather than the rule.” In lese majeste cases, where there is no justice, are the rule.
We can be sure that the repeated refusal of bail is the junta’s decision and may well reflect the position of the palace. Both are seeking to send a message that political activism is out and that even pointing to something that is accurate but critical of the monarchy must be considered a political abomination. Neither group has a track record suggesting respect of the law.