Supachai Rebuts iLaw Over Legal Jurisdiction in Defamation Press Conference Dispute
Bhumjaithai MP Supachai Jairasamut disputes iLaw's legal interpretation, arguing that a press conference broadcast nationwide gives defamation victims the right to file lawsuits in any province.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
- Supachai Jairasamut challenges iLaw's legal stance regarding defamation jurisdiction.
- He distinguishes between localized offenses like lost items and broadcasted statements.
- The press conference at Parliament was held publicly before hundreds of journalists.
- Victims can file complaints or lawsuits in any police station or court nationwide.
Political tensions regarding legal interpretations flared up recently as Supachai Jairasamut, a Bhumjaithai Party list-MP and chairman of the legal working group, posted a statement on his personal Facebook page responding to iLaw. He stated that he was perplexed by iLaw's legal reasoning, which claimed that defamation complaints can only be filed in the specific locality where the incident originated, comparing it to losing a wallet in a specific police district under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Supachai countered that his legal perspective differs fundamentally from iLaw, explaining that a lost property case and a defamation case are entirely distinct in their circumstances. Instead of keeping the information regarding nine Bhumjaithai Party members private between the involved parties, the actions taken involved submitting documents and holding a prominent press conference at the podium inside the parliament press room.
"Therefore, under these circumstances, the injured party can file a complaint at any police station or sue in any provincial court."
Supachai Jairasamut
The Bhumjaithai legal chairman further elaborated that the press conference conducted at the parliamentary podium was carried out loudly and publicly in front of hundreds of media members. These media outlets subsequently distributed the news through online platforms and newspapers, enabling people across the entire country—whether in Amnat Charoen, Omkoi, Sungai Padi, or Bueng Kan—to see, hear, and read the information.
In criminal law, the issue of territorial jurisdiction for defamation offenses published via media or broadcasting is a classic legal debate. Under Thai criminal law provisions regarding defamation, when a statement is disseminated through mass media or online networks, the offense is legally considered to have occurred in every locality where the content reaches. This grants victims a broader range of options to pursue legal action compared to localized crimes with fixed locations such as theft.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
Based on these circumstances, Supachai concluded his legal argument by stating that since the dissemination of information caused the consequences of the offense to spread throughout the kingdom, the injured parties are fully entitled to lodge complaints at any police station and file lawsuits in any provincial court across the country.
Source: Matichon Politics
Found something wrong in this article? Report an issue with this article
Comments
Leave a Comment