On 30 Sept, during the last hearing of his case in the Criminal Court, Amphon Tangnoppakul insisted that he had never sent messages offensive to the monarchy to former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva’s personal secretary through his mobile phone as alleged.

Amphon, 61, has been charged with lèse majesté and computer crimes for sending four mobile phone messages to Somkiat Krongwattanasuk on 9, 11, 12 and 22 May last year.

He told the court that he had worked as a driver for over 20 years before retiring to raise his grandchildren for another 10 years.  He did not know who owned the phone number from which the messages were sent, and did not know Somkiat’s phone number.

He, however, admitted that the phone which had been seized by the police belonged to him.  He always kept it inside his cupboard but sometimes brought it along when going out.  He had had the phone since 2008 and used it until it stopped working.  He took it for repair in April or May 2010; he did not remember exactly when.  After it had been repaired, it stopped working again.  He then took the SIM card out and put it in his wife’s phone.

On 3 Aug 2010 at about 5 am, he was arrested by the police at his rented room.  The police asked for his mobile phone, and he showed them his wife’s phone.  When they asked for other phones, he went to get the broken one in the cupboard and gave it to them. 

In a trembling voice, Amphon answered his lawyer’s questions about the monarchy that he respected and worshipped the institution.  He felt very sorry for what had happened.  He had taken his grandchildren to sign a well-wishers’ book at Siriraj Hospital during their semester break, and he had also attended the funeral ceremony of Princess Galyani Vadhana.

To the public prosecutor’s question about his whereabouts when the messages were sent, he answered that he did not remember.  When asked whether other persons were able to enter his house, he said that his wife’s friends were regularly in and out of his house.

His 11-year-old granddaughter testified as a defence witness with the help of a psychologist.  She said that her grandfather had taken her to sign the well-wishers’ book for the King in 2009, and she had never seen him sending messages through the mobile phone.  He only used the phone to make or receive calls, and he had to look for phone numbers in his book when making calls.

Poonsuk Poonsukcharoen, his lawyer, told the court that she had contacted about 4 persons, including experts on telecommunications technology and mobile phone repairers, and had tried a dozen times to ask them to come to testify as witnesses in the case.  All of them were willing to give her information, but would not come to court.  So she had to gather the information and testify as a witness herself.

Through her contacts with the experts and her own research on the internet, she found that the IMEI (International Mobile Station Equipment Identity), a 15-digit number unique to each mobile phone, which the police claimed as evidence in the case, could be changed.  The mobile phone repairers told her that the number could be changed in about half an hour by using particular applications, but the number must be changed to a number that was already in the networks.  People have changed the IMEI to enable a mobile phone to use certain systems which could not otherwise do, or in some cases so that there would be no evidence that could trace them.

The last digit of the IMEI is called a ‘check digit’, which is used to verify the first 14.  However, mobile phone service providers in Thailand keep record of only the first 14 digits.  So mobile phones with different check digits can be recognized by the system as the same one.  The lawyer submitted information on this subject from the Wikipedia website to the court.

About 20 people attended the hearing, including Amphon’s wife, daughters and young grandchildren.

The verdict on the case will be given on 23 Nov at 9 am at room 801 of the Criminal Court on Ratchadaphisek Rd. 

In previous hearings, prosecution witnesses from DTAC and TRUE testified that their companies kept records of only the first 14 digits, because the last one was insignificant, and it was automatically set by the system.  The DTAC employee said that the IMEI could not be changed, but the TRUE employee said that it could be done.

Pol Col Siripong Timula, an expert on telecommunications technology from the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) and chief investigator on this case, told the court that it was general practice for service providers to keep records of the first 14 digits, and the IMEI could be changed and must appear in the system.

Pol Capt Sakchai Kraiveeradechachai from TCSD said that he had sought opinions from former Deputy Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice Tongthong Chandransu and language experts, and they told him that the messages constituted lèse majesté.