A food delivery rider has been sentenced to prison by the Appeal Court on a royal defamation charge for allegedly attempting to set fire to a portrait of King Vajiralongkorn and Queen Suthida during a protest in July 2021.

28-year-old Sitthichok Sethasavet was accused of setting fire to a portrait of King Vajiralongkorn and Queen Suthida at a royal ceremonial arch on Ratchadamnoen Nok Avenue during a protest on 18 July 2021. He was charged with royal defamation, arson, destruction of property, and violation of the Emergency Decree.

Sitthichok said that he was on his way to deliver an order when he passed through the protest on Ratchadamnoen Nok and saw a fire at the royal arch. Since he has experience volunteering in an emergency rescue unit, he tried to put out the fire using a bottle of water mixed with purple grape-flavoured soda that he carried in his motorcycle to drink while working during the day.

On the same day, a picture of Sitthichok standing by his motorcycle was posted on Twitter, along with a claim that he set fire to the portrait. Because the photo also showed a pink Foodpanda delivery box, the company’s official account replied to the tweet saying the platform has a policy “against violence and all forms of terrorism” and that the rider in question would be fired immediately. It also said that the platform is willing to help the authorities in pressing charges against the culprit.

Over 10 police officers went to Sitthichok’s house in Rangsit and arrested him on 19 July 2021. He was released on 20 July on bail of 100,000 baht.

The Court of First Instance sentenced him to three years for royal defamation and six months for violation of the Emergency Decree. Due to his helpful testimony, the total prison term was reduced to two years and four months without suspension. He later appealed the case.

The food delivery rider argued that he did not participate in the protest, and the bottle of liquid he used did not contain oil or an inflammable substance, as alleged. In addition, the prosecution witnesses were unable to prove the allegation.

He was granted provisional bail on 10 February 2021. Since his first day in prison, Sitthichok went on a hunger strike to protest his own detention.

On 19 January, the Appeal Court upheld the initial verdict, adding that the evaporation of chemical substances may have made it impossible to investigate the fuel which was believed to have caused the fire. The Court believed that Sitthichok had no intention to extinguish the fire, but rather intensify it, concluding that he may have foreseen the consequence of such action — damage to the royal portrait.

This case highlights a key issue in criminal proceedings, where “intention” is a key factor in determining liability. According to the Criminal Code, a person is liable for a criminal charge only if it is proven that they acted intentionally or foresaw the consequences of their actions.

Given that it is not possible to directly prove an accused’s state of mind, the court bases its decision on the surrounding circumstances and evidence, sometimes exercising judicial discretion in interpreting those facts.