The Criminal Court has dismissed a petition requesting an inquiry to end inhumane treatment of human rights lawyer Anon Nampa regarding the use of leg shackles during his royal defamation trial, citing that the practice was lawful.

The petition was filed on 28 May by Thai historian Thongchai Winichakul, the Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) after Anon Nampa was repeatedly seen with both legs shackled while being transferred from the Bangkok Remand Prison to the Ratchada Criminal Court to attend his royal defamation trials.

The petition, filed to address Anon’s case, urges the Court to hold an inquiry with the officers responsible for Anon’s custody to consider whether the use of leg shackles is truly necessary.

According to Thongchai, the requirement that detainees wear a prison uniform or shackles during their trial is a violation of human rights and dignity, which contradicts the principle of presumed innocence. Although such petitions must be submitted on a case-by-case basis, it is expected that they will provide a standard legal procedure that can be used to help other detainees.

He also noted that Section 21 of the 2017 Corrections Act stipulates that shackles only be used with high-risk prisoners or those who have attempted escape in the past, not detainees like Anon, a prominent figure in the international community who has been widely and repeatedly recognised for his work to protect human rights. His royal defamation cases have drawn global attention, and Thongchai argues that images of him shackled in court undermine the credibility of Thailand’s judicial system.

Anon has been held in detention since 26 September 2023 for 10 royal defamation convictions. He now faces a cumulative prison sentence of 29 years and 1 month.

Anon’s testimony

During his detention, Anon was both a defendant and a lawyer. He stated that he was shackled every time he commuted from the prison to the Court. The sharp edges of the shackles caused abrasions on his skin, leaving fresh wounds.

As he was required to appear in court several consecutive days, the shackles repeatedly rubbed against the same wounds, particularly when he walked around the court performing his duties as a lawyer. This occurred despite the fact that he has never attempted to flee, and always appears in court as required.

In addition, Anon noted that the shackles would be dragged along the floor as he walked, creating loud clanking noises. He also felt humiliated by the gaze of both complainants and witnesses, especially when he had to perform his duties without being able to wear a proper suit as a lawyer did. He asserted that this treatment deprived him of his dignity as a lawyer.

As a father, Anon did not want his children to see him in shackles.

Anon stated that not only should those prosecuted for political expression be spared such treatment, but no detainees should be treated as if they have already been convicted with a final verdict.

He observed that some detainees had to tie a rope with the chains connected to shackles to prevent them from dragging on the ground and rubbing against their ankles. Some detainees even had to bend down to lift the chains before being able to stand and walk.

As a human rights lawyer, he believes that those who committed crimes deserve to be treated in a manner proportionate to their punishment. They may be imprisoned, but they should not suffer from being shackled like this.

Anon also argued that human dignity should be upheld at the policy level, both within the Corrections Department and courts, rather than being left to the discretion of individual officers.

Unnecessary shackling is unconstitutional

Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, a law professor at Thammasat University, said shackling Anon while his case has not yet reached a final verdict violates the Constitution, which guarantees the presumption of innocence. Additionally, the Constitutional Court previously ruled in 2011 that the use of shackles was unconstitutional.

Although the Corrections Act authorizes shackling, such power must be strictly exercised under the Constitution, which stipulates that any law that limits rights and freedoms must comply with the conditions in the Constitution.

Prinya also stated that only suspects or defendants who are likely to flee should be held in detention . This approach also aligns with the minimum standards set by the United Nations.

Shackles were abolished a century ago

Sarunyu Thepsongkraow, a historian who studies modern Thai punishment, said that before the legal reforms during the reign of King Rama V, detainees were subjected to harsh practices, including being shackled at the feet and neck.

Even after the Corrections Department was established in the reign of King Rama VI, the use of shackles, both inside and outside the prison, was abolished.

Sarunyu also added that during the tenure of Prime Minister Sarit Thanarat, political prisoners were not subjected to physical restraints, either while in prison or during transfer to court.

The Court dismissed the request

According to TLHR, the Court concluded that restricting freedom, the corrections officers’ actions were in accordance with the Corrections Act, adding that the petition lacked sufficient grounds for further consideration.

A lawyer from the CrCF said the Court did not even mention the repeated injuries Anon had suffered from wearing leg shackles, despite having visible bruises and scars. In addition, corrections officers have never provided any justification for why Anon was placed in leg shackles.

An official form used to record the transfer of detainees to court contained only the detainees’ details and the size of shackles. The section of the form meant for explaining the reason for using shackles simply includes only a checkbox labelled “to prevent escape,” which officers tick and sign off on.

However, they did not provide reasons that led them to assume the detainee might attempt to flee. This practice has become standard, even though officers should be required to provide clear justifications.

In response to the Court’s decision, Thongchai said it confirmed that the courts continue to legitimise legal exceptions, turning them into normal practice in the country. Meanwhile, Anon asserted that he would appeal, stating that the new practice would also serve as a precedent, ensuring all detainees are free from shackles.