Second day of witness testimony in “Thaksin’s 14th Floor” case sees hospital transfer process reconstructed

The Supreme Court prohibits the dissemination of detailed witness testimonies and related documentary evidence, citing that it could obstruct the court from obtaining the whole truth from the next witnesses, while causing public confusion and disclosing confidential medical records of the offender, Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra

The Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions on Friday held the second witness testimony in the case concerning a controversial six-month hospital stay outside a remand prison of the former Prime Minister, Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra, who was sentenced to eight years in prison for three corruption cases he claimed to have been politically motivated, but granted the royal pardon for his service to the country after returning to Thailand in late August 2023. This prompted his jail term to be reduced to one year.

Mr. Thaksin was questioned hard by the public for his abnormally long hospital stay supervised by the Corrections Department shortly after his arrival. He was later discharged from the Police General Hospital, where he had been admitted and stayed for six months on its 14th floor, dubbed the VIP floor, as he was then subject to parole. These treatments resulted in him never spending a single night in prison, raising public outcries over a double standard in the country’s corrections process and justice delivery.

The Court, which has inquisitorial power, eventually took up the case to examine whether the corrections process in his case was really implemented and completed following its ruling. The first day of witness testimony by the Court took place on June 13, one day after the Medical Council of Thailand upheld its earlier decision against its honorary president, Public Health Minister Somsak Thepsuthin from Pheu Thai Party, Mr. Thaksin’s successor party of the defunct Thai Rak Thai.

The Council had ruled to take disciplinary action from issuance of a warning to licence suspension against three doctors, including one witness in Friday’s witness testimony, for their roles in the hospital transfer and admission in Mr. Thaksin’s case. She is an internal medicine doctor at the Department of Corrections Hospital, who examined the health of Mr. Thaksin upon admission at the Bangkok Remand Prison’s clinic on August 22.

The second day of witness testimony

At the Court on Friday, two doctors and three nurses were summoned to testify before the Court. The first doctor, who had examined Mr. Thaksin’s health, explained her role in examining his health and his previous medical records and creating a new medical record for him at the prison. He was found to have several underlying or specific diseases, some of which need further medical treatment. The doctor had issued a hospital transfer certificate for the treatment of these diseases, which was for an OPD admission during official working hours. The under-capacity of the Department of Corrections Hospital to treat the diseases was considered as part of the decision to issue the certificate.

The document was later used to transfer Mr. Thaksin at night following developed symptoms, including high blood pressure, chest tightness, and hypoxemia, to which she had given a second opinion to transfer him to “a hospital outside” to a male nurse who was taking care of Mr. Thaksin through a phone call.

The second doctor, who claimed to be on the night shift at the Hospital as a freelance doctor, hesitantly responded to the Court’s inquiries, disruptively explaining his primary consultation role for Mr. Thaksin’s developed symptoms. He gave a suggestion similar to the first doctor through a phone call with the same nurse. He did not meet and examine Mr. Thaksin’s health conditions or his medical records, even though the prison is not far from the Hospital, about 200 metres away or so.

The third witness was the male nurse who took care of Mr. Thaksin that night. He explained his assignments to take care of Mr. Thaksin who was staying in a quarantine room, and to monitor his health conditions. He was the first to have detected Mr. Thaksin’s symptoms, consulted the doctors, reported to the corrections officials concerned, and arranged the transfer to the Police General Hospital that night.

It took him and the corrections officials two hours or so to manage to transfer Mr. Thaksin to the Police hospital (over 20 km away from the prison), whereas the Department of Corrections Hospital is merely about 200 metres away and would take a much shorter time for the life-saving transfer.

Late last year, the nurse was transferred to a hospital in Sukhothai province, Mr. Somsak’s hometown and political stronghold.

The fourth and fifth witnesses were the female nurses at the DC Hospital who were assigned to assist the first doctor. They were found to have no role in the hospital transfer of Mr. Thaksin, as the doctor did not call them in to help while examining his health.

In total, Mr. Thaksin was at the prison’s compounds on August 22 for around 12 hours. The question that still remains is whether the corrections process for him was already implemented following the court’s ruling and completed.

According to the Corrections Act, B.E. 2560, Section 55 under the chapter concerning the health of inmates states that in the event that an inmate is sick, has mental health problems, or has a contagious disease, a prison commander shall proceed with a medical examination by a doctor for the inmate as soon as possible.

The second paragraph then states that if the inmate requires specialised treatment, or if the inmate does not get better after being treated in prison, the inmate shall be transferred to a treatment centre for that specific disease, a hospital, or a mental health treatment centre outside the prison. The criteria and methods for transfers for treatment outside the prison, the duration of treatment, and the authorised persons shall be in accordance with the ministerial regulations approved by the Committee of Corrections.

In the event that an inmate is sent for treatment outside the prison as per paragraph two, that inmate shall not be considered to be released from detention. If that inmate leaves the place where he or she is being treated, he or she shall be considered guilty of escaping from detention under the Criminal Code.

The Ministerial Regulations on the Transfer of Prisoners for Treatment Outside Prisons B.E. 2563 (2020) was then issued by Mr. Somsak, who was the Justice Minister at that time, and first took effect on October 12, 2020, detailing those criteria and related processes, some of which are still under debate, whether they were skipped or followed in Mr. Thaksin’s case.

The next witness testimonies are scheduled for next Tuesday, July 15, 18, and 25, consecutively.