In a landmark ruling, the Criminal Court on Thursday found Mr Pracha Sangkhom guilty of trespassing on his own property.  While noting that the verdict was expected, observers saw the case as heralding a severe erosion of rights and liberties in the country.

The case began in 2006 when a residential property owned by Mr Pracha, known as ‘Thi Yu Mueang Thai’, was taken over by force.  The shadowy armed organization that carried out the late night raid promptly ripped up the land title documents and wrote their own land ownership law, temporarily giving themselves all rights over the property. 

This group, whose leaders share the name ‘Big’, are recognizable by their penchant for wearing green. They have repeatedly been accused of involvement in a number of crimes but have always escaped prosecution.  This has given rise to a widespread belief among the public that they can act above the law and that any opposition to their activities is futile. 

Mr Pracha however began a brave campaign for the restitution of his rights and, despite harassment by the new owners of the property, managed to secure the passage of a new property ownership law, though one without many of the safeguards of the law that had been usurped.

In 2007, while waiting for the new law to come into force, which would allow him to resume control of Thi Yu Mueang Thai, Mr Pracha became aware that the ‘green’ group had hired a gang of workers to make substantial alterations to his property just before it was going to pass back into his hands.

The most significant physical alteration was the sealing off of the most desirable wing of Thi Yu Mueang Thai behind impenetrable doors.  The ‘greens’ intended to occupy this wing, rent-free and without fear of eviction. 

But most of the changes were institutional.  These included passing building regulations that forbad residents from posting any information on bulletin boards unless it was first approved by the ‘greens’, allowing the ‘greens’ to restrict the movement of residents within the building merely by issuing an ‘emergency proclamation’ to that effect, and significantly increasing water charges to a level that would be punitive for many long-term residents. 

Concerned that these changes might be difficult to reverse once the ‘greens’ had ensconced themselves in their entrenched position, Mr Pracha appealed to the gang of workers not to make significant changes to the building when his re-occupation was only days away.

Unfortunately, cowed by the ‘greens’ who had selected them and were reportedly paying them handsomely with revenue expropriated from the property, most workers turned a deaf ear to Mr Pracha’s pleas and continued to do as they were told.

Mr Pracha then decided that peaceful direct action would be needed to assert his rights as the legitimate owner of Thi Yu Mueang Thai.  He therefore peacefully entered the management office of the property and sat down, as a protest against further unwarranted changes.  The ‘greens’ promptly called the police who removed Mr Pracha from his own property and filed numerous charges against him.

These included illegal assembly, trespass, using force to harm others, obstructing property management and attempted demolition of the building.  The trial was a lengthy affair and many judicial rulings went against Mr Pracha.  He attempted, for example, to question the legality of the occupation of the property by the ‘greens’, but the court ruled that this was not a matter that could be decided by the court since the greens had already granted themselves an amnesty.

The charge of obstructing property management was dismissed, since the ‘greens’ had in the end got their way, as was that of attempted demolition when the prosecution failed to produce any evidence of demolition equipment.

In addition to trespassing on his own property, Mr Pracha was found guilty of illegal assembly in that he had formed himself into a mob of one.  He was also found guilty of using force to harm others.

This latter conviction was based on the fact that on entering the building, Mr Pracha had opened a door.  Expert prosecution witnesses had testified that this required the use of force and that had anyone been positioned immediately behind the door, they may well have sustained an injury.  And if Mr Pracha had, for example, used a battering ram to force open the door, the injuries to any person in such a position could be serious.  Although nobody had been behind the door and there had been no injury, the court ruled that Mr Pracha was not to know this and his reckless endangerment of public safety was as good as actual harm.

He was sentenced to 2 years in prison and a 9,000 baht fine, although the court suspended the jail term on the grounds that Mr Pracha had an unblemished record of public service.  ‘We appreciate the Mr Pracha was concerned only with ensuring justice in society,’ said the presiding judge, ‘however, the law is far more important than justice and no one can break the law.  Unless of course they are wearing green.’

The sentence was greeted with marked disapproval from the public gallery, which was packed with Mr Pracha’s supporters, international and diplomatic observers and the media.  In hurrying to escape the hostile atmosphere in the court, the judge barged open the exit door, completely pole-axing a court official who happened to be passing behind it.  The official was later taken to hospital for treatment of her injuries.

Asked if the judge would be charged with ‘using force to harm others’, a court spokesperson reacted with incredulity.  ‘For opening a door?  Are you guys for real?’