Public Prosecutor Indicts Two Noodle Vendors under Article 112 for Protest Signs Displayed at Their Shop

The case originates from an incident on 18 January 2023, where the two defendants allegedly displayed two signs on the glass cabinet of their noodle shop. One sign called for the repeal of Article 112, and the other demanded the release of political detainees ("Release Our Friends"), alongside a phrase implying the monarchy was a "burden.”The complaint was initiated by Mr. Songchai Niamhom, a member of the royalist group, the People's Group Protecting the Monarchy, who alleged that the text on the signs defamed, insulted, or expressed malice towards the monarchy.

The Prosecutor's Rationale for the Indictment

The public prosecutor asserted in the indictment that the messages on the signs were visible to the general public passing by the shop and were subsequently posted and shared on social media. The prosecution argued that the content was an intentional mockery, insult, and transgression against the King and Queen, causing their honour and reputation to be severely diminished and earning them contempt. Specifically, the prosecution interpreted the signs as intentionally implying the use of royal power was improper, that state budget expenditures (paid for by public taxes) were not beneficial to the people, and that royal movements were a "burden" to the populace.

The prosecutor also opposed bail, citing the high penalty attached to the crime and deeming the defendants a flight risk and a danger to society.

Analysis and Context of the Case: The Expanding Scope of A112

The case against Jae Juang and Jae Thiam highlights several critical dimensions of how Article 112 is currently enforced:

1. Application to Ordinary Citizens: The defendants are humble street vendors, marking a shift from earlier Article 112 cases that primarily targeted prominent political activists. The prosecution of ordinary civilians for small-scale symbolic expression in a private business space demonstrates the expansion of the law's scope into everyday life.
2. Role of the Complainant: The case was initiated by Mr. Songchai Niamhom of the royalist group. This aligns with the common pattern of citizen-initiated prosecution under Article 112, where individuals or ideological groups utilize the legal mechanism to file criminal charges, effectively turning Article 112 into a powerful tool for civic political management.
3. Judicial Interpretation of Text: The prosecutor’s interpretation that criticising the state budget or stating the monarchy is a "burden" constitutes intentional defamation reveals how closely critiques of public policy or social role can be legally linked to lèse-majesté in the Thai justice process.
4. Bail Conditions: While the court ultimately granted temporary release despite the prosecutor's objection, the extremely high bail set at 200,000 Baht per person signals that the court still views the case as involving "serious circumstances of the offense," placing a significant legal and financial burden on defendants of limited economic means.

Court Grants Bail

Later that afternoon, the Phra Khanong Criminal Court ordered the temporary release of both defendants during the trial proceedings. Bail was secured at 200,000 Baht each, with assistance provided by the Ratsadon Prasong Fund. The court scheduled the next hearing for a pre-trial examination of evidence on 22 January 2026. This is the second Article 112 charge faced by Jae Juang.

Call to Action from 112WATCH: Support and Monitor This Case

112WATCH urges the public to recognise the significance of this case as a stark example of the law's expanding reach to suppress civil rights, and calls for action on three fronts:

1. Financial Support: Given the steep bail amount of 200,000 Baht per person and the continuous legal costs expected, we urge the public to donate to the Ratsadon Prasong Fund or other legal aid initiatives to help alleviate the financial strain on Jae Juang and Jae Thiam.
2. Monitoring the Judicial Process: We call upon the public and the media to follow this case closely, particularly the scheduled evidence examination on 22 January 2026, to ensure transparency and monitor the court’s interpretation of the law, which directly impacts freedom of expression for all citizens.
3. Stand Firm on Repeal/Reform: This case serves as a powerful reminder of the urgent need to reform or abolish Thailand’s Criminal Code, Article 112, to stop its use as a political tool against ordinary citizens attempting to exercise their rights to express and criticise.