International Federation
for Human Rights

Thammakaset vs. human rights defenders and workers in Thailand

Since 2016, Thai poultry company Thammakaset Co., Ltd. has filed a total of 39 criminal and civil cases against 23 defendants, including human rights defenders, workers, and journalists, for alleged defamation of the company. The complaints stemmed from the defendants’ documentation, communication, and advocacy in connection with labour rights violations allegedly committed by Thammakaset. In addition to the cases detailed below, Thammakaset has filed an unknown number of criminal complaints to the police against other individuals. However, to date, there have not been any decisions on whether these complaints warranted prosecutions.

List of the 24 defendants targeted by Thammakaset’s civil and criminal complaints

1. Mr. Nan Win [see #1, #4, #8, #10]
2.Mr. Tun Tun Win [see #1, #7, #15]
3. Ms. Ye Ye [see #1, #2.1, #2.2]
4. Mr. Soe Yong [see #1, #2.1, #2.2]
5. Ms. Ka Thway Soe [see #1, #10]
6. Mr. Nan Toe [see #1, #10]
7. Ms. May Lin [see #1]
8. Mr. Moe [see #1]
9. Mr. Nay Min Tun [see #1]
10. Ms. Wai Wai [see #1]
11. Mr. Thu Ya [see #1]
12. Mr. Myint Aung [see #1]
13. Ms. San San [see #1]
14. Ms. Ju [see #1]
15. Ms. Suthasinee Kaewleklai, labour rights defender see [#2.2, #10]
16. Mr. Andy Hall, labour rights defender [see #3]
17. Ms. Sutharee Wannasiri, former Human Rights Specialist [see #13, #14]
18. Ms. Suchanee Cloitre, journalist [see #6.2, #6.1]
19. Ms. Ngamsuk Ruttanasatian, academic [see #11, #12]
20. Ms. Angkhana Neelaphaijit, human rights defender and former member of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT) [see #13, #14]
21. Ms. Puttanee Kangkun, Senior Human Rights Specialist see [#13, #14]
22. Ms. Thanaporn Saleephol, former Communications Associate [see #16]
23. Voice TV, media company [See #17]
24. Ms. Ngamsuk Ruttanasatian [See #9]

Cases filed by Thammakaset

1. Criminal case against 14 former workers for reporting the labour rights violations to the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT)

On October 6, 2016, Thammakaset filed a criminal complaint with the Don Mueang Kwaeng [Sub-District] Court in Bangkok against 14 migrant workers from Myanmar for allegedly “providing false information to an official” (Article 137 of the Criminal Code) and “defamation” (Article 326), after the workers submitted a complaint over alleged labour rights violations to the NHRCT. [1] Thammakaset claimed that their complaint to the NHRCT had damaged the company’s reputation. On July 11, 2018, the court dismissed the case against the 14 migrant workers. The court found that the workers filed the complaints of labour violations while working at Thammakaset farm to the NHRCT in good faith to defend their own rights. Even though some of the details of the information provided by the workers were inaccurate, the workers’ provision of information to the NHRCT did not amount to providing false information. Thammakaset had appealed the court’s verdict, but the Don Mueang Kwaeng [Sub-District] Court refused to accept the appeal on a matter-of-fact. On May 30, 2019, the Court of Appeals upheld the Don Mueang Sub-District Court’s decision not to accept Thammakaset’s appeal. This judgment is final.


2. Criminal case against two former workers and the Coordinator of the Migrant Workers Rights Network (MWRN) for taking the employees’ timecards to use it as evidence of working excessive hours without overtime pay

2.1 Public prosecution against two former workers

On June 24, 2016, Ms. Ye Ye and Mr. Soe Yong, two of the 14 migrant workers from Myanmar employed by Thammakaset, were charged by a police officer with “co-commission of theft of the employer’s properties by night” (Articles 334 and 335(1) and (11) of the Criminal Code) for stealing employee timecards, as alleged by Thammakaset. The charges stemmed from the fact that the workers had presented their employee timecards to government labour inspectors from the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare as evidence of labour violations. Thammakaset alleged the two had stolen the timecards. However, the Lopburi Public Prosecutor’s Office decided not to proceed with prosecution against the two workers because they did not commit a crime, as their intentions were not dishonest.

2.2 Private lawsuit against two former workers and the coordinator of the MWRN

On October 24, 2017, Thammakaset filed a criminal complaint with the Lopburi Provincial Court, for alleged “co-commission of theft by night” (Articles 334 and 335(1) of the Criminal Code), “receiving stolen property” (Article 357), and “taking away a person’s document, likely to cause damage to that person” (Article 188), against the two workers, Ms. Ye Ye and Mr. Soe Yong. Thammakaset’s complaint also included allegations against Ms. Suthasinee Kaewleklai, a labour rights defender and Coordinator of the MWRN, a civil society organisation promoting and protecting the rights of migrant workers, for acting as a co-commissioner, an instigator or a supporter of the above-mentioned offences. [2] On September 3, 2018, during the preliminary hearing, the Lopburi Provincial Court dismissed the merit of the complaint and decided not to proceed with the criminal case against the two workers and Ms. Suthasinee. The Court found that the timecards were taken in order to be presented to the labour inspector of Lopburi Province without dishonest intention. The Court also found the defendants did not change any information on the timecards, and that the company already had a duty to present such a document to the labour inspector, therefore the company’s reputation was not damaged. Thammakaset appealed the Court’s decision. On July 30, 2019, the Court of Appeals upheld the Lopburi Provincial Court’s decision to dismiss the merit of the complaint against the two workers and Ms. Suthasinee.

3. Criminal case against a labour rights defender for posting and sharing information regarding labour rights abuses

On November 4, 2016, Thammakaset filed a criminal complaint with the Bangkok South Criminal Court against Mr. Andy Hall, a British national and labour rights defender, for alleged “defamation” (Article 326 of the Criminal Code) and “libel” (Article 328), and violation of Article 14(1) of the Computer Crimes Act, [3] in connection with his use of social media to highlight the criminal charges against the 14 migrant workers. The complaint against Mr. Hall is still pending at the Bangkok South Criminal Court.

4. Criminal case against a former worker for speaking about his work conditions during a press conference and in a short film, and for posting such information on Facebook

On October 8, 2018, Thammakaset filed a criminal complaint with the Criminal Court in Bangkok, for alleged “defamation” (Article 326 of the Criminal Code) and “libel” (Article 328), against Mr. Nan Win, one of the 14 migrant workers from Myanmar, based on two interviews he gave to the human rights NGO Fortify Rights at its press conference, which was broadcast on Facebook Live, [4] and in a short campaign video produced by Fortify Rights and uploaded to YouTube. [5] Thammakaset alleged that Mr. Nan Win’s testimonies, which contained details of alleged labour rights abuses while he was working at Thammakaset’s farm, damaged the company’s reputation. The preliminary hearing was held on 4 February 2019. On March 8, 2019, the Criminal Court decided that the grounds of this case had been established, and therefore accepted to proceed with the prosecution against Mr. Nan Win. The first hearing was held on May 24, 2019. During the hearing, the Court decided to combine the cases of Mr. Nan Win and Ms. Sutharee Wannasiri [see #5.1]. Witness examination hearings were held from February 18 to 21, 2020. The verdict, initially scheduled for March 31, 2020, was postponed to April 27, 2020, and again to June 8, 2020, due to the coronavirus outbreak. On June 8, 2020, the Court found Mr. Nan Win not guilty of defamation and dismissed the case against him. The Court ruled that the information Mr. Nan Win gave in the two interviews to Fortify Rights was true and provided in good faith for the protection of a legitimate interest – an exemption from defamation under Article 329(1) of the Criminal Code. In October 2020, Thammakaset appealed the Court’s ruling. On March 30, 2022, the Court of Appeals upheld the Criminal Court’s decision to dismiss the criminal defamation case against Mr. Nan Win. The Court of Appeal Court reaffirmed the Criminal Court’s ruling that labor rights violations were committed at the Thammakaset poultry farm and that Mr. Nan Win’s public testimonies on the working conditions were a legitimate act aimed at defending his interests, with no intention to damage the reputation of Thammakaset - an exemption from defamation under Article 329(1) of the Criminal Code.

5. Criminal and civil cases against a former Human Rights Specialist for posting a short video clip on Twitter

5.1 Criminal defamation

On October 12, 2018, Thammakaset filed a criminal complaint with the Criminal Court in Bangkok, for alleged “defamation” (Article 326 of the Criminal Code) and “libel” (Article 328), [6] against Ms. Sutharee Wannasiri, former Human Rights Specialist at Fortify Rights. The complaint related to three posts Ms. Sutharee made on Twitter about a campaign video produced by Fortify Rights. [7] Thammakaset alleged that Ms. Sutharee’s posts damaged the company’s reputation. The preliminary hearing was held on March 11, 2018. On March 25, 2019, the Criminal Court in Bangkok decided to proceed with the defamation case against Ms. Sutharee. The first hearing of the trial was held on May 24, 2019. The Criminal Court decided to combine the cases of Ms. Sutharee and Mr. Nan Win [see #4]. The Court also issued a detention warrant against Ms. Sutharee. Ms. Sutharee submitted a 50,000 THB (1,600 USD) [8] deposit to be granted bail. Witness examinations hearings were held from February 18 to 21, 2020. The verdict, initially scheduled for March 31, 2020, was postponed to April 27, 2020, and again to June 8, 2020, due to the coronavirus outbreak. On June 8, 2020, the Court found Ms. Sutharee not guilty of defamation and dismissed the case against her. The Court ruled that Ms. Sutharee’s three Twitter posts constituted “fair comment” on issues that were the subject of public criticism – an exemption from defamation under Article 329(3) of the Criminal Code. In October 2020, Thammakaset appealed the Court’s ruling. On March 30, 2022, the Court of Appeals upheld the Criminal Court’s decision to dismiss the criminal defamation case against Ms. Sutharee. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed the Criminal Court’s ruling that labor rights violations were committed at the Thammakaset poultry farm and that Ms. Sutharee investigated the labor rights violations based on the credible and impartial findings of the reports by the Department of Labor Protection and Welfare (DLPW) and the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT). Therefore, Ms. Sutharee expressed her opinion in good faith - an exemption from defamation under Article 329(3) of the Criminal Code.

5.2 Civil defamation

On October 26, 2018, Thammakaset filed a separate civil defamation complaint with the Civil Court in Bangkok against Ms. Sutharee Wannasiri, demanding five million THB (US$160,282) in compensation for damage to the company’s reputation. [9] The complaint related to three posts Ms. Sutharee made on Twitter about the campaign video produced by Fortify Rights, arguing that Ms. Sutharee’s posts on Twitter damaged the company’s reputation. Thammakaset also demanded Ms. Sutharee publish an apology to the company in four local newspapers and on her Twitter account every day for a minimum of 30 days, destroy the defamatory information in the computer or internet system, and cover all legal costs for Thammakaset. The Civil Court held a preliminary hearing for this case on December 24, 2018, which set witness examination hearings for August 27-30, 2019, and set the date for issue of the verdict for October 31, 2019. During the witness hearing phase, the Civil Court sought to mediate the dispute between the two parties. On August 28, 2019, after more than half a day of mediation, Thammakaset decided to drop the complaint pursuant to an agreement reached with Ms. Sutharee, whereby Ms. Sutharee agreed to state that she regretted if some information in the Fortify Rights’ video clip was misleading and could cause damage to Thammakaset.

6. Criminal cases against a female reporter for posting information regarding the labour rights abuses on Twitter

6.1 Public prosecution

On November 16, 2017, Thammakaset filed a criminal complaint for alleged “defamation” (Article 326 of the Criminal Code)) and “libel” (Article 328), and violation of Article 14(1) of the Computer Crimes Act, with the Lopburi police against Ms. Suchanee Cloitre, a former Voice TV reporter, in relation to a Twitter post that Ms. Suchanee made on September 14, 2017 regarding Thammakaset’s labour rights abuses. [10] Ms. Suchanee testified at the police station on May 1, 2018. On October 16, 2018, the Lopburi Public Prosecutor’s Office decided not to prosecute the case.

6.2 Private lawsuit

On March 1, 2019, Thammakaset filed a criminal complaint for alleged “defamation” (Article 326 of the Criminal Code) and “libel” (Article 328) with the Lopburi Provincial Court, against Ms. Suchanee Cloitre, a former Voice TV reporter. The preliminary hearing was held at the Court on June 3, 2019. On June 17, 2019, Ms. Suchanee’s lawyer submitted to the Court a motion to request the dismissal of the merit of the complaint under Article 165/2 of the Criminal Procedure Code. [11] The motion argued that Thammakaset’s criminal complaint lacked merit because it amounted to judicial harassment against a human rights defender. However, the court refused to consider the motion. On July 18, 2019, the Lopburi Provincial Court decided to proceed with the case against Ms. Suchanee. The first hearing was held on August 14, 2019, and the witness examination hearings were held from November 5 to 8, 2019. On December 24, 2019, the Lopburi Provincial Court found Ms. Suchanee guilty under Articles 326 and 328 of the Criminal Code and sentenced her to two years in prison. After the sentence, Ms. Suchanee was released on a 75,000 THB (2,404 USD) bail. Ms. Suchanee appealed the verdict. On October 27, 2020, the Court of Appeals overturned the Lopburi Provincial Court’s decision and dismissed the case against Ms. Suchanee. The Court found that Ms. Suchanee’s statement was made in good faith and constituted “fair comment” on issues that were the subject of public criticism – an exemption from defamation under Article 329(3) of the Criminal Code. On August 9, 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ acquittal of Ms. Suchanee.

7. Criminal case against a former worker for posting or sharing information online that is likely to cause damage to the company’s reputation

Thammakaset filed a criminal complaint with the Bangkok South Criminal Court against Mr. Tun Tun Win, one of the 14 migrant workers from Myanmar, for alleged “defamation” (Article 326 of the Criminal Code) and “libel” (Article 328). Unaware that a complaint had been filed against him, on May 18, 2019, Mr. Tun Tun Win received a summons to appear before the Bangkok South Criminal Court for the first hearing on June 4, 2019. Unbeknown to Mr. Tun Tun Win, the Court had already accepted to proceed with the prosecution against him and decided that the grounds of the case had been established by Thammakaset. Mr. Tun Tun Win was granted bail upon the deposit of 50,000 THB (1,600 USD). However, Mr. Tun Tun Win did not appear in Court for the first hearing on June 4, 2019. As a result, the Bangkok South Criminal Court, on July 8, 2019, seized the bail deposit, ordered a temporary suspension of the case, and issued an arrest warrant against Mr. Tun Tun Win.

8. Criminal case against a former worker for giving testimony to the Labour Court

On May 1, 2019, Thammakaset filed a criminal complaint with the Saraburi Provincial Court, for alleged “false testimony to the Court” (Article 177 of the Criminal Code), against Mr. Nan Win, one of the 14 migrant workers from Myanmar, for allegedly providing “false testimony to the Court” (Article 177 of the Criminal Code) regarding the labour dispute between Thammakaset and the 14 migrant workers. The preliminary hearing was held on June 24, 2019. On August 6, 2019, the Saraburi Provincial Court decided that grounds for the prosecution of Mr. Nan Win had been established. The first hearing was held on October 7, 2019. A witness examination hearing was held on March 11, 2020. On March 24, 2020, the Saraburi Provincial Court dismissed the case against Nan Win. The Court found that the evidence produced by Thammakaset was not sufficient to prove that Nan Win had committed a crime.

9. Criminal case against a university lecturer for sharing on Facebook information demanding Thammakaset drop defamation complaints against human rights defenders

On May 1, 2019, Thammakaset filed a criminal complaint for alleged “defamation” (Article 326 of the Criminal Code) and “libel” (Article 328) with the Criminal Court in Bangkok against Ms. Ngamsuk Ruttanasatian, a lecturer at Mahidol University’s Institute for Human Rights and Peace (IHRP) in Thailand. The complaint stemmed from sharing a Fortify Rights news release dated March 12, 2019, on IHRP’s Facebook page. [12] Thammakaset alleged that Ms. Ngamsuk was the administrator of IHRP’s Facebook page. Preliminary hearings were held on July 1 and August 5, 2019. On September 18, 2019, the Criminal Court in Bangkok dismissed the complaint against Ms. Ngamsuk due to insufficient evidence. Thammakaset appealed the Court’s decision. On July 16, 2020, the Court of Appeals upheld the Criminal Court’s decision to dismiss the complaint against Ms. Ngamsuk. On September 22, 2021, the Criminal Court in Bangkok read the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision to dismiss the complaint against Ms. Ngamsuk. This judgement is final.


10. Criminal case against three former workers and the Coordinator of the Migrant Workers Rights Network (MWRN) for reporting labour rights violations to the labour inspectors of the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare.

On May 1, 2019, Thammakaset filed a criminal complaint with the Lopburi Kwaeng [Sub-District] Court against three former workers (Ms. Ka Thway Soe, Mr. Nan Toe, Mr. Nan Win) [13] and Ms. Suthasinee Kaewleklai, a labour rights defender and Coordinator of MWRN, a civil society organisation promoting and protecting the rights of migrant workers, for allegedly “providing false information to an official” (Article 137 of the Criminal Code), after the workers submitted a complaint over alleged labour rights violations to the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare in 2016. The preliminary hearing was held on January 27, 2020. On March 18, 2020, the Lopburi Kwaeng [Sub-District] Court dismissed the compliant because the Don Mueang Kwaeng [Sub-District] Court had already ruled on this matter and found that the defendants did not provide false information to the labour inspector [see #1]. Thammakaset attempted to appeal against the decision to the Lopburi Kwaeng [Sub-District] Court. However, the appeal of a matter of fact in this case is prohibited by the Criminal Procedure Code. [14] Thammakaset appealed the prohibition to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the Lopburi Kwaeng [Sub-District] Court’s refusal to consider the appeal in this case. Thammakaset appealed the Court of Appeals’ refusal to the Supreme Court. On September 27, 2021, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ refusal to consider the appeal of this case. This judgment is final.

11-12. Criminal cases against a former member of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT) for posting messages in support of fellow women human rights defenders on Twitter

On October 25, 2019, Thammakaset filed a criminal complaint with the Bangkok South Criminal Court, for alleged “defamation” (Article 326 of the Criminal Code) and “libel” (Article 328), against Ms. Angkhana Neelaphaijit, human rights defender and former member of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT). The complaint related to two posts Ms. Angkhana made on Twitter in support of fellow women human rights defenders Ms. Sutharee Wannasiri [see #5] and Ms. Ngamsuk Ruttanasatian [see #9], which contained a hyperlink to a campaign video produced by Fortify Rights, which Thammakaset considered defamatory. The first preliminary hearing was held on February 24, 2020. During this hearing, the Court rejected a petition filed by Ms. Angkhana’s legal team to dismiss Thammakaset’s complaint pursuant to Articles 161/1 and 165/2 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The second preliminary hearing, initially scheduled for April 8, 2020, was postponed to June 8, 2020, due to the coronavirus outbreak. On June 8, 2020, the Court rejected the request by Ms. Angkhana’s legal team to combine her case with that of Ms. Puttanee Kangkun [see #13]. The examination of the first of the three witnesses called by Thammakaset could not be completed during the hearings held on August 4 and November 3 and 9, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 situation, the Court postponed the next preliminary hearings, originally scheduled for February 8, 2021. The examination of the first witness was completed during the hearings on March 22 and 29, 2021. On June 28, 2021, the preliminary hearings were completed. On August 16, 2021, the Court ruled the criminal defamation case against Ms. Angkhana will proceed. At the first hearing of the trial, on October 26, 2021, the Court set the witness examination hearings for March 3,4, and 8, 2022 (Thammakaset’s witnesses), and March 9, 10, and 11, 2022 (Ms. Angkhana’s witnesses). On February 22, the Court postponed the hearings to begin on April 25, 2022. On April 25, the Court scheduled the examinations of Thammakaset’s witness(es) for March 14-17, 2023, and the examination of Ms. Angkhana’s witness(es) for March 21-22, 2023.

On March 30, 2020, Thammakaset filed an additional criminal complaint with the Bangkok South Criminal Court for alleged “defamation” (Article 326 of the Criminal Code) and “libel” (Article 328), against Ms. Angkhana. The complaint related to two posts Ms. Angkhana made on Twitter in support of fellow women human rights defenders involved in criminal defamation cases filed by Thammakaset. The posts made reference to statements, at least one of which contained a hyperlink to the campaign video produced by Fortify Rights. The court scheduled a mediation hearing between Thammakaset and Ms. Angkhana for August 5, 2020. However, the mediation failed, as the two parties could not reach an agreement. The preliminary hearing was set for August 24, 2020. On August 24, 2020, the Court considered a request by Ms. Angkhana and Thammakaset’s legal teams to combine this case with those of Ms. Puttanee Kangkun [see #13] and Ms. Thanaporn Saleephol [see #16]. The Court adjourned the preliminary hearing to September 14, 2020, when it decided to combine this case of Ms. Angkhana [#12], the cases of Ms. Thanaporn [see #16], and the two cases of Ms. Puttanee [see #13 and #14], as requested by the parties. The examination of the first of the three witnesses called by Thammakaset could not be completed during the hearings held on November 23 and 30, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 situation, the Court postponed the next hearings, from January 18 and 25, and April 19 and 26, 2021 to June 21, 2021. On June 21, 2021, the Court set the next hearings for December 27, 2021, for the continuation of the witness examination. However, the hearing was postponed to March 21, 2022, due to the COVID-19 situation. On March 21, the Court resumed the witness examination and scheduled the next hearing for May 31. On May 31, the Court scheduled the next hearing for June 17 for the continuation of the examination of Thammakaset’s witnesses. On June 17, the Court acknowledged requests by the three defendants to submit written motions. The Court scheduled the next hearings for September 12. On September 12, 2022, the Court ruled that the criminal cases against Ms. Angkhana [see #12], Ms. Thanaporn [see #16] and Ms. Puttanee [see #13 and #14] would proceed. The trial’s first hearing was scheduled for November 14, 2022. On November 14, 2022, Ms. Angkhana and her legal counsels submitted a request to combine the two cases [#11 and #12] against her. The hearing was adjourned to December 19, 2022. On December 19, the Court postponed the consideration of Ms. Angkhana’s request to combine the two cases [#11 and #12] to January 16, 2023. On January 16, 2023, the Court agreed to combine the two cases [#11 and #12] against Ms. Angkhana. The examination hearings of Thammakaset and its witnesses were held from March 14 to 17, 2023. Three witnesses testified for Thammakaset: Mr. Chanchai Permpol, Thammakaset’s representative; the head of the Lopburi Province Office of Labor Protection and Welfare; and an officer from the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT). On March 22-23, 2023, the examination hearings of the three defendants [see #11, #12, #13, #14, and #16] took place. On May 24, 2023, the Court held an examination hearing of the defendants’ only witness, Dr. Sriprapha Petcharamesree, a human rights lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Chulalongkorn University. On July 6, 2023, the Court announced that the verdict in the criminal defamation case against the three defendants [see #11, #12, #13, #14, and #16] would be delivered on August 29, 2023. On August 29, 2023, the Court acquitted the three defendants [see #11, #12, #13, #14, and #16] of criminal defamation. The Court found that the social media posts did not directly concern Thammakaset and that the comments made by the three defendants were made “in good faith” and not intended to cause any damage to Thammakaset’s reputation.

13-14. Criminal case against a Senior Human Rights Specialist for posting messages in support of fellow women human rights defenders on social media

On December 6, 2019, Thammakaset filed a criminal defamation complaint with the Bangkok South Criminal Court for alleged “defamation” (Article 326 of the Criminal Code) and “libel” (Article 328), against Ms. Puttanee Kangkun, Senior Human Rights Specialist with Fortify Rights. The complaint stemmed from 14 social media engagements (three tweets, nine retweets, and two Facebook posts) she posted between January 25 and September 17, 2019, to express support for fellow women human rights defenders involved in criminal and civil defamation cases filed by Thammakaset. A preliminary hearing was held on March 2, 2020. During this hearing, the Court rejected a petition filed by Ms. Puttanee’s legal team to dismiss Thammakaset’s complaint pursuant to Articles 161/1 and 165/2 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court adjourned the hearing to May 18, 2020, and then pstponed it until June 8, 2020, due to the coronavirus outbreak. During the preliminary hearing on June 8, 2020, the Court discussed with the legal teams of both parties the additional case against Ms. Puttanee [see paragraph below]. The Court said it would decide whether to combine the two cases against Ms. Puttanee during the next preliminary hearing, which was set for August 17, 2020. On August 17, 2020, the Court decided to combine the cases of Ms. Puttanee [#13] and Ms. Thanaporn Saleephol [see #16]. The next preliminary hearing is set for September 14, 2020, when the Court decided to combine the two cases of Ms. Puttanee [#13 and #14], one of the cases of Ms. Angkhana Neelaphaijit [see #12] and the case of Ms. Thanaporn [see #16], as requested by the parties. The examination of the first of the three witnesses called by Thammakaset could not be completed during the hearings held on November 23 and 30, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 situation, the Court postponed the next hearings from January 18 and 25, and April 19 and 26, 2021 to June 21, 2021. On June 21, 2021, the Court asked the parties to set the next hearings for December 27, 2021, for the continuation of the witness examination. However, the hearing was postponed to March 21, 2022, due to the COVID-19 situation. On March 21, the Court resumed the witness examination and scheduled the next hearing for May 31. On May 31, the Court scheduled the next hearings for June 17 for the continuation of the examination of Thammakaset’s witnesses. On June 17, the Court acknowledged requests by the three defendants to submit written motions. The Court scheduled the next hearings for September 12. On September 12, 2022, the Court ruled that the criminal cases against Ms. Angkhana [see #12], Ms. Thanaporn [see #16] and Ms. Puttanee [see #13 and #14] would proceed. The trial’s first hearing was scheduled for November 14, 2022. On November 14, 2022, Ms. Angkhana and her legal counsels submitted a request to combine the two cases [#11 and #12] against her. The hearing was adjourned to December 19, 2022. On December 19, the Court postponed the consideration of Ms. Angkhana’s request to combine the two cases [#11 and #12] to January 16, 2023. On January 16, 2023, the Court agreed to combine the two cases [#11 and #12] against Ms. Angkhana. The examination hearings of Thammakaset and its witnesses were held from March 14 to 17, 2023. Three witnesses testified for Thammakaset: Mr. Chanchai Permpol, Thammakaset’s representative; the head of the Lopburi Province Office of Labor Protection and Welfare; and an officer from the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT). On March 22-23, 2023, the examination hearings of the three defendants [see #11, #12, #13, #14, and #16] took place. On May 24, 2023, the Court held an examination hearing of the defendants’ only witness, Dr. Sriprapha Petcharamesree, a human rights lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Chulalongkorn University. On July 6, 2023, the Court announced that the verdict in the criminal defamation case against the three defendants [see #11, #12, #13, #14, and #16] would be delivered on August 29, 2023. On August 29, 2023, the Court acquitted the three defendants [see #11, #12, #13, #14, and #16] of criminal defamation. The Court found that the social media posts did not directly concern Thammakaset and that the comments made by the three defendants were made “in good faith” and not intended to cause any damage to Thammakaset’s reputation.

On March 30, 2020, Thammakaset filed an additional criminal complaint with the Bangkok South Criminal Court for alleged “defamation” (Article 326 of the Criminal Code) and “libel” (Article 328), against Ms. Puttanee. The complaint related to seven posts Ms. Puttanee made on Twitter between November 29, 2019, and January 30, 2020, which made reference to statements, at least one of which contained a hyperlink to the campaign video produced by Fortify Rights. The Court scheduled a mediation hearing between Thammakaset and Ms. Puttanee for August 5, 2020. However, the mediation failed, as the two parties could not reach an agreement. The preliminary hearing was set for August 31, 2020. On August 31, 2020, the Court considered a request by Ms. Puttanee and Thammakaset’s legal teams to combine this case with those of Ms. Puttanee [see #13] and Ms. Thanaporn Saleephol [see #16]. The Court adjourned the preliminary hearing to September 14, 2020, when it decided to combine the two cases of Ms. Puttanee [#13 and #14], one of the cases of Ms. Angkhana Neelaphaijit [see #12], and the case of Ms. Thanaporn [see #16], as requested by the parties, The examination of the first of the four witnesses called by Thammakaset could not be completed during the hearings held on November 23 and 30, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 situation, the Court postponed the next hearings from January 18 and 25, and April 19 and 26, 2021 to June 21, 2021. On June 21, 2021, the Court asked the parties to set the next hearings for December 27, 2021, for the continuation of the witness examination. However, the hearing was postponed to March 21, 2022, due to the COVID-19 situation. On March 21, the Court resumed the witness examination and scheduled the next hearing for May 31. On May 31, the Court scheduled the next hearings for June 17 for the continuation of the examination of Thammakaset’s witnesses. On June 17, the Court acknowledged requests by the three defendants to submit written motions. The Court scheduled the next hearings for September 12. On September 12, 2022, the Court ruled that the criminal cases against Ms. Angkhana [see #12], Ms. Thanaporn [see #16] and Ms. Puttanee [see #13 and #14] would proceed. The trial’s first hearing was scheduled for November 14, 2022. On November 14, 2022, Ms. Angkhana and her legal counsels submitted a request to combine the two cases [#11 and #12] against her. The hearing was adjourned to December 19, 2022. . On December 19, the Court postponed the consideration of Ms. Angkhana’s request to combine the two cases [#11 and #12] to January 16, 2023. On January 16, 2023, the Court agreed to combine the two cases [#11 and #12] against Ms. Angkhana. The examination hearings of Thammakaset and its witnesses were held from March 14 to 17, 2023. Three witnesses testified for Thammakaset: Mr. Chanchai Permpol, Thammakaset’s representative; the head of the Lopburi Province Office of Labor Protection and Welfare; and an officer from the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT). On March 22-23, 2023, the examination hearings of the three defendants [see #11, #12, #13, #14, and #16] took place. On May 24, 2023, the Court held an examination hearing of the defendants’ only witness, Dr. Sriprapha Petcharamesree, a human rights lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Chulalongkorn University. On July 6, 2023, the Court announced that the verdict in the criminal defamation case against the three defendants [see #11, #12, #13, #14, and #16] would be delivered on August 29, 2023. On August 29, 2023, the Court acquitted the three defendants [see #11, #12, #13, #14, and #16] of criminal defamation. The Court found that the social media posts did not directly concern Thammakaset and that the comments made by the three defendants were made “in good faith” and not intended to cause any damage to Thammakaset’s reputation.

15. Criminal case against a former worker for giving testimony to the Labour Court

On May 1, 2019, Thammakaset filed a criminal complaint with the Saraburi Provincial Court against Mr. Tun Tun Win, one of the 14 migrant workers from Myanmar, for allegedly providing “false testimony to the Court” (Article 177 of the Criminal Code) regarding the labour dispute between Thammakaset and the 14 migrant workers. Unbeknown to Mr. Tun Tun Win, who was unaware that a complaint had been filed against him, the Saraburi Provincial Court held a preliminary hearing on June 17, 2019. On August 26, 2019, the Court decided that grounds from the prosecution of Mr. Tun Tun Win had been established. On November 11, 2019, the first hearing was held. However, Mr. Tun Tun Win did not appear for the hearing. As a result, the Court issued an arrest warrant against Mr. Tun Tun Win.

16. Criminal case against a former Communications Associate for posting messages in support of fellow women human rights defenders on social media

On March 30, 2020, Thammakaset filed a criminal defamation complaint with the Bangkok South Criminal Court for alleged “defamation” (Article 326 of the Criminal Code) and “libel” (Article 328), against Ms. Thanaporn Saleephol, former Communications Associate at Fortify Rights. The complaint stemmed from five social media engagements (two tweets and three retweets) that Ms. Thanaporn posted between November 24, 2019, and January 30, 2020, to express support for Ms. Angkhana Neelaphaijit [see #11-12] and Ms. Puttanee Kangkun [see #13-14], two fellow women human rights defenders involved in criminal defamation cases filed by Thammakaset. The court scheduled a mediation hearing between Thammakaset and Ms. Thanaporn for August 5, 2020. However, the mediation failed, as the two parties could not reach an agreement. The preliminary hearing is set for August 17, 2020. On August 17, 2020, the Court rejected a petition filed by Ms. Thanaporn’s legal team to dismiss Thammakaset’s complaint pursuant to Articles 161/1 and 165/2 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court also decided to combine the cases of Ms. Thanaporn and Ms. Puttanee Kangkun [see #13]. The next preliminary hearing was set for September 14, 2020, when the Court decided to combine the cases of Ms. Thanaporn, the two cases of Ms. Puttanee Kangkun [see #13 and #14], and one of the cases of Ms. Angkhana Neelaphaijit [see #12], as requested by the parties. The examination of the first of the three witnesses called by Thammakaset could not be completed during the hearings held on November 23 and 30, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 situation, the Court postponed the next hearings from January 18 and 25 and April 19 and 26, 2021, to June 21, 2021. On June 21, 2021, the Court set the next hearings for December 27, 2021, for the continuation of the witness examination. However, the hearing was postponed to March 21, 2022, due to the COVID-19 situation. On March 21, the Court resumed the witness examination and scheduled the next hearing for May 31. On May 31, the Court scheduled the next hearings for June 17 for the continuation of the examination of Thammakaset’s witnesses. On May 31, the Court scheduled the next hearings for June 17 for the continuation of the examination of Thammakaset’s witnesses. On June 17, the Court acknowledged requests by the three defendants to submit written motions. The Court scheduled the next hearings for September 12. On September 12, 2022, the Court ruled that the criminal cases against Ms. Angkhana [see #12], Ms. Thanaporn [see #16] and Ms. Puttanee [see #13 and #14] would proceed. The trial’s first hearing was scheduled for November 14, 2022. On November 14, 2022, Ms. Angkhana and her legal counsels submitted a request to combine the two cases [#11 and #12] against her. The hearing was adjourned to December 19, 2022. On December 19, the Court postponed the consideration of Ms. Angkhana’s request to combine the two cases [#11 and #12] to January 16, 2023. On January 16, 2023, the Court agreed to combine the two cases [#11 and #12] against Ms. Angkhana. The examination hearings of Thammakaset and its witnesses were held from March 14 to 17, 2023. Three witnesses testified for Thammakaset: Mr. Chanchai Permpol, Thammakaset’s representative; the head of the Lopburi Province Office of Labor Protection and Welfare; and an officer from the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT). On March 22-23, 2023, the examination hearings of the three defendants [see #11, #12, #13, #14, and #16] took place. On May 24, 2023, the Court held an examination hearing of the defendants’ only witness, Dr. Sriprapha Petcharamesree, a human rights lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Chulalongkorn University. On July 6, 2023, the Court announced that the verdict in the criminal defamation case against the three defendants [see #11, #12, #13, #14, and #16] would be delivered on August 29, 2023. On August 29, 2023, the Court acquitted the three defendants [see #11, #12, #13, #14, and #16] of criminal defamation. The Court found that the social media posts did not directly concern Thammakaset and that the comments made by the three defendants were made “in good faith” and not intended to cause any damage to Thammakaset’s reputation.

17. Civil case against a media company for reporting news, which contained information about the labour rights abuses, on Twitter

On October 25, 2019, Thammakaset filed a civil defamation complaint against media company Voice TV with the Bangkok South Civil Court. The complaint related to a post on Voice Online’s Twitter account, which contained language about Thammakaset’s treatment of 14 migrant workers from Myanmar, which the company considered defamatory. Thammakaset demanded that Voice TV: 1) delete the information from its computer systems; 2) publish an apology to Thammakaset in several Thai newspapers and on the Voice TV’s twitter account and website; and 3) cover Thammakaset’ s legal expenses. Witness examination hearings were held from June 16 to 18, 2020, at the Bangkok South Civil Court. On July 30, 2020, the Bangkok South Civil Court dismissed the civil defamation complaint against Voice TV. The Court found that the information posted on Voice Online’s Twitter account was true, and, therefore, Voice TV could not be held liable for defamation.

August 29, 2023 (Criminal defamation; Ms. Puttanee Kangkun [see #13 and #14], Ms. Thanaporn Saleephol [see #16], and Ms. Angkhana Neelaphaijit [see #11 and #12]): Delivery of the verdict at the Bangkok South Criminal Court.