Global Freedom of Expression

Public Prosecutor v. Shwe Hmone (Myanmar)

On Appeal Contracts Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Non-verbal Expression
  • Date of Decision
    December 18, 2015
  • Outcome
    Monetary Damages / Fines, Imprisonment
  • Case Number
  • Region & Country
    Myanmar, Asia and Asia Pacific
  • Judicial Body
    First Instance Court
  • Type of Law
    Criminal Law
  • Themes
    Freedom of Association and Assembly / Protests, Press Freedom
  • Tags
    Political speech

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

On December 18, 2015, Daw Shwe Hmone, a senior reporter for Thamaga News Journal, was sentenced by a court in Kyaktada Township, Rangoon, Myanmar, to either 15 days in prison or to a fine of 10,000 kyat (approximately USD 7.70). She was found guilty after participating in a public prayer event held on November 2, 2014, commemorating the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists.

Global FoE could not identify official legal and government records on the case and information on the case was derived from secondary sources. Global FoE notes that media outlets may not provide complete information about this case. Additional information regarding legal matters will be updated as an official source becomes available.


In June 2015, Shwe Hmone was charged under Article 19 of the Peaceful Assembly Law. On November 2, 2014, Shwe Hmone participated in a demonstration that was held to commemorate the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists; the Myanmar government considered this demonstration illegal. Sources reported that around 150 people participated in the demonstration, which took place at a pagoda (temple) in Rangoon. The participants prayed for the wellbeing of Burmese journalists currently subjected to violence or imprisonment. Prior to the demonstration, organizers are said to have attempted to gain permission from authorities, but permission was granted only on the condition that the demonstration be held at a sports field in Tamwe Township. When the demonstrators went to the pagoda instead, the demonstration was labeled illegal.

In addition to Shwe Hmone, around 50 people participating in the demonstration were arrested, but Shwe Hmone was the only person who was charged. She initially wanted to face the jail term, but her colleagues paid the fine instead.

Decision Overview

This case does not have an official court document. Sentencing individuals for a peaceful demonstration is not a new issue in Myanmar. The country’s Peaceful Assembly Law is always criticized by groups such as Human Rights Watch, Article 19, and Amnesty International. The law is said to prevent freedom of expression for having a variety of limitations. It requires organizers to give details of the event they would like to host five days prior the actual date. The details they have to submit include dates, time, purpose, itinerary, names and addresses of organizers and speakers, as well as the chants they would like to use.

Article 19 of the Peaceful Assembly Law stipulates that an individual can receive a maximum of three months jail term and a fine of 10,000 Kyat for engaging in conduct prohibited in Articles 10 – 12 of the Law as well as unspecified “local rules.” According to the Article 10 and 11, participants will face criminal liability if the assemblies in which they participate take place in a location authorities did not assign. The restrictions for assemblies described in Article 12 are also vague; this allows authorities the discretion to arrest and imprison individuals who participate in unapproved assemblies. Also, “reciting or shouting of chants” that have not been informed in advance, spreading “rumors or incorrect information”, or “saying things or behav[ing] in a way that could affect the country or the Union, race, or religion, human dignity and moral principles” are considered as illegal under Article 12 of the Law.

Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Contracts Expression

This case contracts expression as the defendant was found guilty and fined for participating in a peaceful assembly. The law under which she was charged, and which the Court used to sentence her to criminal liability, does not support the exercise of freedom of expression.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Related International and/or regional laws

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • Myan., Peaceful Assembly Law, art. 19

Other national standards, law or jurisprudence

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Additional Citations:

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:

Amicus Briefs and Other Legal Authorities

Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback