Today is the first hearing. The Plaintiff and both defendants' lawyer are present at the hearing. Both defendants did not show up.
Both defendants' lawyer submitted 3 petitions; one petition arguing that the address where the summons have been served were incorrect since they are not the defendant's actual address, and thus request for the re-issue of summons, and the other two petitions requesting the postpone of the hearing until 30 days after the general election.
The Plaintiff confirmed to the Court it has received copies of the petitions. The Plaintiff confirmed to the Court that the addresses of both defendants used to deliver the summons are the actual address of both defendants as per housing certificate.
With respect to the request to postpone the hearing on the grounds of security of defendants and witnesses, the Plaintiff disagrees and argued that those are not real threat, just assumption and thoughts of both defendants. The Plaintiff argued that the defendants referred to interviews published in newspapers which can not be proven as truth. The issue of ‘national conciliation' claimed by both defendants is again just understandings and expectations of both defendants
Since the summonses have been properly served and both defendants did not come to court today, the arrest warrants shall be issued and the trial shall proceed further.
Both defendants' lawyer informed the Court that both defendants have no intention to flee or avoid the hearing. The defendants are willing to stand trial but due to special circumstances, the defendants need to postpone the hearing. Both defendants requested that the proper period for them to return to stand trial will be after the general election and Thailand has democratic government. Further, both defendants concern about their safety, safety protection for their witnesses and issue of /national conciliation'.
The Court has reviewed issues and resolved that the Plaintiff has confirmed that the addresses specified in the Complaint is the correct address of both defendants and both defendants have used such addresses as contacting point with government authorities. Further, the defendants never contest the issue of actual domicile in other cases. Both defendants were aware of the summons delivered, the lawyers have been duly appointed. The Court thus deems that the addresses used in the Complaint are the correct and proper address.
The fact that both defendants request to postpone the hearing citing personal safety, safety protection for witnesses and national reconciliation. The Court finds that Thailand is governed under the democratic of constitutional monarch. Even though the country is under the military control, but there is the Interim Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand of 2006. This government has duty and responsibility to provide safety to its citizen in the same manners as any democratically elected government. It is a criminal offence to kill or injure any person. No one shall violate any basic human rights of people. The facts that various people have expressed comments on the safety of the defendants and national dispute and division if they would return to Thailand are just statements of opinion. Once the defendants return to Thailand , they will be protected by provision of laws. The Court found the reason cited by both defendants to be minimal.
Once this case is under trial, the Court will provide fairness and justice to both defendants and allow both defendants to have fair trial. There is no reason to postpone the hearing.
All three petitions submitted by the defendants' lawyer hereby dismissed.
Regarding the Complaint and summons delivered by the Plaintiff, the Court found them to be lawful and properly done. Therefore, both defendants did not come to court today. It is reasonable to believe that both defendants intend to flee. The Court hereby orders the issue of arrest warrants for both.
The Court set September 25, 2007 at 10 am to hear report on the warrant procedures and to fix the hearing date.
