Thaksin sent back to jail as Supreme Court rules corrections enforcement in “Thaksin’s 14th Floor” case unlawful

Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra, the powerful former Prime Minister of Thailand and the defendant in this case, was also found to have been aware of his non-critical health conditions in the first place, a point that is now triggering his opponents to contemplate filing more complaints against him

In this historic case that will set a precedent for the country’s corrections enforcement in compliance with ultimate court rulings, especially imprisonment against political position holders, the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions on Tuesday ruled that corrections enforcement concerning the one-year imprisonment of Mr. Thaksin was unlawful.

As such, other related correctional processes, including his prolonged hospital stay outside the prison and parole, have also become illegitimate, resulting in him having to return to jail to serve his one-year jail term, as previously granted through a royal pardon on August 31, 2023.

“When the facts are heard that on August 31, 2023, a royal pardon was granted to reduce the defendant’s sentence (eight years) to one year in prison, this shall have resulted in the defendant receiving reduced sentencing, and he must serve one year left in prison as such. It does not mean that his imprisonment will be terminated.

“As the enforcement of the defendant’s (one-year) sentencing (outside the prison) was unlawful, as deliberated by this Court, the related corrections processes as well as the parole have hence carried no legal effect, and the time spent at the Police Hospital cannot be counted as detention days.

“Thus, the defendant must serve that one year of imprisonment according to the royal pardon,” the Chief Judge read out the ruling, which was agreed unanimously by all five senior Judges who had deliberated the case.

Also read: สรุปคำสั่งศาลฎีกาแผนกคดีอาญาของผู้ดำรงตำแหน่งทางการเมือง คดี “ทักษิณ​ ชั้น 14”

The beginning of historic “Thaksin’s 14th Floor”

Having taken self-imposed exile for over 15 years after being ousted by the coup in 2006 and embattled with court cases he claimed to be politically motivated, the powerful former PM of Thailand decided to return to the country to serve his prison sentence for three malfeasance and corruption cases allegedly committed during his term.

Mr. Thaksin was sentenced to eight years in prison by this Court, but was later granted a royal pardon for his service to the country. This prompted his jail term to be reduced to one year.

On the night of August 22, 2023, the day he had arrived, he was brought to the Court and then the Bangkok Remand prison before being transferred from its quarantine room and admitted to the Police General Hospital (PGH) after claiming to have developed acute symptoms, including chest tightness. He had since reportedly stayed in the hospital on its 14th floor, dubbed as the VIP floor, for six months.

Mr. Thaksin was then granted parole one day before he left the hospital, and continued staying outside the prison at his residence for the rest of the next six months of his commuted one-year jail term. These treatments resulted in him never spending a single night in prison, raising public outcries over a double standard in the country’s corrections enforcement and justice delivery, while portraying the case as “Thaksin’s 14th Floor”.

The Court, which has inquisitorial power, had decided to conduct a court deliberation as the case was brought to the Court and some facts appeared before it that the corrections enforcement in this case may not have complied with its ruling. The Court took the deliberation to see whether the corrections enforcement, especially the imprisonment following its final ruling, was really implemented and completed.

The Court had conducted seven witness hearings since June 13, before the final session was wrapped on July 30, and the ruling was scheduled last Tuesday.

In total, 31 witnesses were summoned to testify in this case; be they the Department of Corrections Hospital’s executives and doctors, one of whom had performed his health check-up at the prison, a nurse who took care of him at a quarantine room, the Police General Hospital’s executives and doctors who had provided him medical treatments, corrections officials who supervised his hospital transfer and detention at the Police Hospital, and the Department of Corrections’ executives including its Director General and Deputies.

They were also the third-party witnesses who were the country’s noted physicians and board members from the Medical Council of Thailand, and last but not least, the Cabinet’s long-time legal advisor and once a former Deputy PM in the Thaksin Government, Prof. Dr. Wissanu Krea-ngam, Mr. Thaksin’s sole witness.

The Court’s power

Based on consecutive hearings of those 31 witnesses, the five senior Judges had come up with three issues to address: whether it had the power to rule on the case, whether this was a repetition of its previous deliberations, and whether the corrections enforcement in the case had complied with its ultimate ruling.

The Court had examined its power addressed under Section 188 (1) under the 2017 Constitution, the Organic Act on Criminal Procedure for Holders of Political Positions B.E. 2560 (2017), and the Regulation on the Prosecution of the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions B.E. 2562, Section 61, paragraph 2.

It then ruled that it had the power to examine whether the corrections enforcement in this case, especially the imprisonment after the case was finalised at the Court, was actually implemented following its ruling.

The Court stated that although a Prison Warden or Commander of the Bangkok Remand Prison and the Director-General of the Department of Corrections have the authority under Section 55 of the Corrections Act B.E. 2560 (2017) and the Ministerial Regulation on the Transfer of Prisoners for Treatment outside Prison B.E. 2563 (2020), medical treatment outside a prison for an inmate must factually comply with rules and conditions set under the laws. They could not exercise their power freely and without legal scrutiny by the court, the Court further noted.

“As it appears to the Court that the inmate in this case may not have been sentenced in accordance with its final ruling, the Court as such has the power to examine whether the hospital transfer authorised by the Prison Commander and the extensions of his hospital stay at the Police Hospital authorised by the Director General of the department have complied with the Act, the Regulation, and Section 89 under the Criminal Procedure Code or not,” the Court ruled.

Court deliberation repeated?

The Court then examined the next issue: whether or not the deliberation this time had repeated the previous actions and rulings of the Court. The case was filed in the Court twice, on December 19, 2023 and on February 15, 2024, by former Democrat MP and the House’s deputy chairman of an anti-corruption sub-committee, Charnchai Issarasenarak. 

He asked the Court to look into his petitions to see whether the corrections officials had acted lawfully in the case and whether there was any mitigation for the penalty enforcement which was not in accordance with Section 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court, however, had dismissed the case, citing unrelated claims, including the fact that there was no evidence showing that mitigation was undertaken in this case. 

Mr. Charnchai filed the case for the third time in January this year to revoke the previous court orders, and the Court rejected it again, citing that he was neither a plaintiff nor a direct damage person in the case. 

However, some facts had appeared before it that the corrections enforcement in this case may not have complied with its final ruling. The Court then addressed the issue based on the facts emerging and conducted the deliberation as needed.

“Such an issue is unprecedented and has not been ruled on before. As such, the deliberation over the issue is not a repetition of its previous examinations,” the Court ruled.

l The Bangkok Remand Prison’s atmosphere and the recent inspection by its Director-General, Sahakarn Phetnarin, who knew about the corrections enforcement of the case since the first day. Photo credit: Department of Corrections

Hospital transfer

The Court then had one last issue left to address: whether the corrections enforcement in the case had complied with its ultimate ruling. To establish the facts, the Court examined three key aspects of the case: the hospital transfer of Mr. Thaksin, his illnesses, and the prolonged hospital stay that led to his release. 

It first went back to Mr. Thaksin’s first day in custody, August 22, 2023. 

The Court noted that after its prison sentence ruling, Mr. Thaksin was taken to the Bangkok Remand Prison and received a health check-up from a doctor from the Department Corrections Hospital. She produced a new medical record for him based on her examination and previous medical records of Mr. Thaksin’s health from foreign hospitals, noting that he had up to 10 diseases; including those concerning the health of his heart, lung, liver, and spinal cord. 

However, there were only three diseases that the doctor suggested he should undergo further examination for: spinal disc herniation, heart disease, as the Hospital did not have specialist doctors, and hepatitis B, as the Hospital did not have a liver disease clinic either.

So, she considered sending him out to take further health examinations in hospitals more capable than the department’s Hospital during working days, as she considered that they were not urgent cases. (The doctor later issued a referral letter in advance, but it was used on the night of August 22 to accompany Mr. Thaksin’s transfer to the Police General Hospital following his claimed acute symptoms.)

The doctor’s views were in line with those of Professor Emeritus Dr. Prasit Watanapa, the MCT’s first Vice President and former Dean of Siriraj Hospital’s Faculty of Medicine, who was also one of the witnesses from the MCT. The MCT had previously examined the codes of conduct of the doctors concerned and punished three doctors, including the Director of the Police Hospital at that time, his deputy, and the doctor at the department’s Hospital.

The Court heard the facts that some of those diseases were already treated and recovered, while the others were chronic and could be cured with continued treatment. There were only three diseases that needed further examination.

However, the nurse who took care of Mr. Thaksin at a quarantine room in the Prison on August 22 told another story: the critical health condition of Mr. Thaksin.

According to the nurse, at around 10 pm, “Mr. Thaksin informed him” that he felt fatigued, and he couldn’t sleep. His right leg had weakened, and he felt chest tightness. Mr. Thaksin also had slightly high blood pressure, measured by the nurse at 178/98 mmHg. His heart rate was 86 beats/minute, his breathing was 24 breaths/minute, and the oxygen at his fingertip was at 92 per cent. His body temperature at the same time stood at 36.8 degrees Celsius.

The nurse on duty testified that he thought Mr. Thaksin would have a heart problem, so he called a doctor on the night shift at the Hospital to ask for his suggestion. That doctor suggested him send Mr. Thaksin out. So, he called the first doctor who had examined Mr. Thaksin health to ask for her permission to use a referral letter to accompany Mr. Thaksin’s transfer to a hospital outside the prison. 

He submitted his note to the Chief Warder for permission, and he authorised the hospital transfer for Mr. Thaksin that night. However, the Prison transferred Mr. Thaksin to the Police General Hospital, not the department’s Hospital, which was only around 200 metres away and had a doctor on duty that night. 

According to Section 55, paragraph 1 of the Corrections Act, in conjunction with Section 2, paragraph 1 of the Ministerial Regulation, steps are determined for a hospital transfer outside a prison for an ill inmate. They state that when an inmate is sick, he or she must be sent out and examined by a doctor “at the prison’s medical facility” as soon as possible.

If a doctor views that an inmate is not getting better after being treated in the prison’s hospital, a corrections official shall be recommended to take the inmate to hospital outside the prison for further treatment. This follows Section 55, paragraph 2 of the Act, and Section 2 paragraph 2 (1) of the Regulation, which addresses one-day treatment, or Section 2 paragraph 2 (2), which addresses hospital stay.

“The transfer of the defendant to receive treatment outside the Prison had therefore violated Section 55 of the Corrections Act B.E. 2560 and the Ministerial Regulation on the Transfer of Prisoners to Receive Treatment outside of Prison B.E. 2563”, the Court ruled.

l Special patient rooms at the 14th Floor of the M.B.R. Building at the Police Hospital, where Mr. Thaksin had reportedly stayed for six months before receiving the parole. Photos: Bangkok Tribune

Critical emergency?

Mr. Thaksin was sent for emergency treatment outside the prison due to his chest tightness, but according to the corrections officials accompanying his hospital transfer, he was straightforwardly sent to a special patient room on the 14th Floor of the Maha Bhumibol Adulyadej 8th Anniversary Building (M.B.R.), which was not an emergency or accident unit.

The practice is contrary to the Police Hospital’s Regulation B.E. 2557 (2014) regarding the admission of patients who are the accused, detainees, prisoners or convicts for treatment as patients of the Police Hospital, the Court stated.

The guidelines for treatment in emergency cases are set out in Article 5.3 of the Regulation that in cases outside of office hours, a physician on duty at the emergency and accident units will provide examinations and treatments for those patients. And Article 6.2 states that those patients shall be admitted to the patient rooms arranged at the Hospital, unless the Chief Physician (S.B.8) has given permission otherwise. 

“The defendant in this case was admitted to a special patient room on the building’s 14th Floor, which was not an emergency room. This shows that the Hospital did not treat him as an emergency case as normal. No doctors or executives of the Hospital knew who had arranged this for him, nor did they know about his transfer to that room. This is enormously abnormal,” the Chief Judge stated. 

“The defendant’s symptoms did not align with an emergency case, and they were not in line with the Hospital’s Regulation that also addresses “an emergency case”. This shows that the Hospital, in fact, had arranged the special room in advance for him.” 

l The Cardiovascular clinic of the Police Hospital. It’s in the building next to the M.B.R. Building. Photos: Bangkok Tribune

Heart problem?

The Court also learned from the veteran physicians of the MCT, including Prof. Dr. Prasit and Assoc. Prof. Chairat Permpikul, President of the Royal College of Physicians of Thailand and a veteran critical care and pulmonary physician, about a patient’s symptoms with heart disease. 

Chest tightness could suggest coronary artery disease, and this shall be examined through an electrocardiogram within 10 minutes upon arrival in any hospital. Reading through Mr. Thaksin’s medical records and doctor progress notes, the veteran doctors noted that upon his arrival on the night of August 23, no electrocardiogram (EKG) was conducted for him, nor was a cardiac doctor called in to help examine his heart condition.

It was August 24, or more than 24 hours later, that a cardiac doctor of the Hospital came to check on the health of his heart. A recording of his heart’s electrical activity through repeated cardiac cycles was found to be normal, as well as other symptoms related to it. No further unusual symptoms concerning his heart were detected in the next few days.

According to his attending doctor at the Police Hospital, who is a neurologist, he treated Mr. Thaksin upon his first admission at the Hospital by providing him with bronchodilators and blood pressure medication. No heart disease medication was given to Mr. Thaksin, and he later told his attending doctor that he felt better.

All these, the Court noted, suggested that it’s not an emergency treatment. The Court then stated: “No prescription or treatment given to a patient who came as an emergency case with a heart problem can be regarded as abnormal.”

The Court also learned from the Department of Corrections Hospital’s Director and its cardiologist that the medical prescriptions for Mr. Thaksin, an electrocardiogram, bronchodilators and antihypertensive drugs, were all available at the Hospital.

This fact suggested to the Court that Mr. Thaksin’s symptoms that night were within the capacity of the Department of Corrections Hospital, and there was no need to send him out for treatment outside the Prison.

“Considering all the circumstances, it’s believed that the defendant did not have chest tightness, but claimed to have it to enable the corrections officials to use it as an excuse to transfer him to the Police Hospital,” the Court stated.

Besides, the Court further learned from the Hospital’s director and the cardiac doctor that they could take care of Mr. Thaksin’s health conditions since August 24th. His attending doctor at the Police Hospital also confirmed through his testimony that the defendant could return to the Prison’s hospital for treatment since August 24.

“Therefore, if the defendant’s chest tightness actually occurred as claimed, the defendant’s condition would have improved, and the defendant should have been able to return to receive treatment at the Prison’s medical care provision unit or the department’s Hospital from August 24 onwards,” the Court stated.

Prolonged hospital stay

From August 24, 2023, to February 18, 2024, the day he left the Police Hospital, Mr. Thaksin’s hospital stay had been extended periodically upon requests by the Prison to the Police Hospital. 

According to the Court, the doctors at the Police Hospital issued medical opinion certificates dated September 15, October 18, and December 21, 2023, to the Prison and its commander to be used to accompany their requests for permission from the department’s Director-General to prolong the hospital stay for Mr. Thaksin beyond 30 days, 60 days, and 120 days.

The reasons accompanying the officials’ proposals range from continued treatment of the surgical wounds, “urgent” surgery, treatment for cerebral ischemia, as well as surgery for cervical spondylosis.

This is despite the fact that the surgeries, as stated in the medical opinion certificates, were actually for a trigger finger and his right shoulder tendon, which was ruptured due to an accident at the Police Hospital. They were not the causes of Mr. Thaksin’s illness cited for his hospital transfer to the Police Hospital in the first place, the Court noted.

The doctors at the Police Hospital had also offered the defendant cervical spondylosis or neck surgery, but he refused. At the end, the Court learned that there was no such surgery until he left the Hospital.

“All the facts are heard that the corrections enforcement concerning the imprisonment of the defendant was unlawful,” the Court ruled.

And according to all these above-mentioned circumstances, they indicate that the defendant knew the facts or was aware of the incident that he was not in a critical emergency condition, the Court pointed out. He just had chronic underlying diseases that could be treated as an outpatient and needed no stay in the Police Hospital. It’s information about his own health and physical conditions that he knew about, the Court noted.

Besides, the Court learned that the defendant had a role in making the decisions in his medical treatment. He refused to have the surgeries for his heart and cervical spinal cord and nerve compression, but opted for medication based on the symptoms. Mr. Thaksin also opted for the surgeries for a trigger finger and right shoulder tendon, which were not urgent, and as a result, his treatment at the Police Hospital was extended.

“The defendant therefore benefited from his stay at the Police Hospital without having to return to the Bangkok Remand Prison until he was released. 

“He cannot claim that all these were the actions of those officials and doctors, and he had no involvement to gain benefits from the time spent at the Police Hospital, which helps deduct the number of detention days following the verdict,” the Court pointed out.

The fallen legacy

Mr. Thaksin, in his black suit and yellow necktie, sat still in a black chair in front of the court bench, where the Judges had already left the courtroom after finishing reading their ruling and ordering corrections officials to take Mr. Thaksin back to jail.

His family members, including his youngest daughter and a recently dismissed PM, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, started to move close to him and surround him as if they were trying to soothe him. Hardly any conversations were initiated among them, and the room fell into absurd silence. 

Mr. Thaksin started to remove his suit and necktie before his lawyer reminded the other attendees in the room — to leave.

Hours earlier, there was a high speculation among the public that Mr. Thaksin may not have appeared before the Court as he flew out of the country to Dubai on September 4 before returning in the late afternoon the day before the Court’s session began on September 9. 

He appeared at the court around 9.30 am, apparently well-composed, while being flanked by his family members, including his two daughters, Paegtorntarn, and her older sister, Pintongta.

Unlike a common scene familiar to Thai people, he did not wave his hands to greet the crowd and the media as he had ever done, nor did he have a big smile on his face either. 

Mr. Thaksin just walked quietly along with his family members towards the courtroom, where he had learned about his dark fate before leaving his populist legacy and the landslide victory in the 2005 election that was a historic political event of the country — behind.

Minutes after the Court’s ruling, Mr. Thaksin spoke out through his social media: “Dear respected citizens, with gratitude for the great kindness of His Majesty the King, who granted me a royal pardon, reducing my prison sentence to one year, it is an immeasurable kindness towards me and my family. I humbly accept and am ready to enter the process according to today’s verdict.”

Mr. Thaksin also recalled his past legacy, saying throughout his tenure as Prime Minister from 2001 to 2006, he tried to push forward every policy to improve the quality of life of the people, change the political landscape of Thailand, allow political parties to compete with each other on policy, and create a democracy that can be derived from the government’s actual achievements, which is “his greatest pride as a politician elected by the people”.

“Although all these cases arose after the 2006 coup against my government, today I look forward to the resolution of all the past cases, including legal battles and any conflicts that arose or were related to me,” Mr. Thaksin said, while thanking the people as well as those involved with him including politicians and members of Pheu Thai Party, a successor of his first party, Thak Rak Thai.

Mr. Thaksin said he has chosen this path to encourage everyone to move forward and work for the nation, religion, monarchy, and people, with the shared ideals and spirit, until the day they can walk together again.

“From today, even though I will lose my freedom, I will still have freedom of thought for the benefit of the nation and its people. I will maintain both physical and mental strength to spend the rest of my life serving the monarchy, the land of Thailand, and the Thai people, no matter what my status is from now on,” vowed Mr. Thaksin.

The lessons learned

Nobody knows at this point what Mr. Thaksin would do next, but for his opponents, they said the case is a historic one in the country’s justice system, as it proved that the system could still be upheld. As the new facts have been pointed out, they will follow up and may file additional complaints to the National Anti-Corruption Commission to look into Mr. Thaksin’s role, as they have suspected that he might have a supporting role in the case or else.

Some legal academics, including Associate Professor Dr. Munin Pongsapan, a former Dean of the Faculty of Law at Thammasat University, have shared their legal observations. Dr. Munin posted on his Facebook account that the ruling that Thaksin’s imprisonment was unlawful, resulting in his re-serving of a suspended sentence, marked a historic milestone in legal history. 

This was not the first time a former prime minister had actually been sent to prison in Thailand, but also the first time the Supreme Court had examined the enforcement of a judgment, which falls under the responsibility of the executive branch (specifically the Department of Corrections). 

This was despite objections that the court should not have the authority to investigate without explicit legal authority. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law as having authority reflects a lack of confidence in the executive branch’s ability to enforce judgments and the court’s perceived lack of other options to promptly address this serious issue in the justice system. 

“The Supreme Court’s order in this case serves as both evidence of failures in the sentencing process and a signal to the executive branch that it must strictly adhere to the law and swiftly seek reforms or plugs in the sentencing process. The court should not rely solely on the interpretation of the law to exercise oversight,” remarked Dr. Munin.

Secondly, Dr. Munin pointed out that while this historic Supreme Court order applies only to Thaksin’s 14th Floor case, it will set a new precedent, potentially leading to requests for review of sentencing enforcement in other cases. If the court refuses to investigate without reasonable cause, it could be accused of unfair enforcement of the law. 

However, the court likely does not have the time and personnel to review the execution of judgments in every case. Therefore, it is imperative that the court consults internally to establish clear criteria for the types of cases in which the court should review the execution of judgments, Dr. Munin noted.

Also read previous reports on the witness testimony sessions: Thaksin and Prison Warden ordered to appear in court on Sep 9 for court ruling on “Thaksin’s 14th Floor” case/ Thaksin’s actual illness revealed in fifth hearing of “Thaksin’s 14th Floor” case/ Protocols and regulations concerning extensions of hospital stay in “Thaksin’s 14th Floor” case inquired in fourth hearing of Supreme Court/ Supreme Court inquires into hospital transportation and hospital custody in third hearing of “Thaksin’s 14th Floor” case/ Second day of witness testimony in “Thaksin’s 14th Floor” case sees hospital transfer process reconstructed

Note: Bangkok Tribune was permitted to attend and observe this historic case along with some fellow media members from the first day of the Court’s witness hearing sessions to the final day of the Court’s ruling session.