Case Summary and Outcome

The Appeals Court of Thailand ruled in favour of Andy Hall, a human rights defender, clearing him of criminal defamation charges. The charges were brought by Natural Fruit Company Ltd. over allegations that Hall harmed its reputation through his involvement in research on the company’s treatment of migrant workers. The Court found that Hall’s evidence was credible and substantiated claims of mistreatment of migrant workers by the company. It concluded that his statements were based on sound research and true facts, dismissing the charges previously upheld by the Bangkok Criminal Court. On June 30, 2020, the Supreme Court of Thailand upheld this Appeals Court’s acquittal of the activist.

Facts

In 2013, the Finnish NGO Finnwatch published a report titled “Cheap Has a High Price,” which investigated human rights abuses and labour exploitation in Thailand’s food production sector. Andy Hall (the Defendant), a British human rights defender, contributed to this report by conducting interviews with migrant workers from Myanmar and analysing evidence. The report alleged serious labour rights violations by the Plaintiff, Natural Fruit Company Ltd., including forced labour, withheld wages, passport confiscation, and unsafe working conditions. After the report’s publication, Hall gave an interview to Al-Jazeera English in Myanmar to discuss its findings.

Natural Fruit Company denied the allegations and filed four lawsuits against Hall, accusing him of defamation and violations under Thailand’s Computer Crime Act. The Plaintiff claimed that Hall’s statements and the dissemination of the Finnwatch report online had damaged its reputation. The legal claims invoked Section 328 of the Thai Criminal Code, which penalises defamation, and the Computer Crime Act (2007), which prohibits the dissemination of false information online.

Over the years, various Thai courts heard different aspects of the case, resulting in a mix of rulings. All lawsuits were dismissed except for one: on 20 September 2016, the Bangkok South Criminal Court found Hall guilty of criminal defamation under Section 328 of the Thai Criminal Code and the Computer Crime Act. The Court concluded that Hall’s statements harmed Natural Fruit’s reputation. He was sentenced to four years of imprisonment, reduced to three years due to his cooperation during the trial. The sentence was suspended for three years, and he was fined 150,000 Thai baht (€3,856).

Hall appealed the ruling, citing errors in assessing the credibility of the report and its foundation in verified research.

Decision Overview

The three-judge Appeals Court bench, comprising Justices Witthaya Phromprasit, Worajit Saengsook, and Natthaphong Thapananetiphong, delivered the judgment.

The Court examined whether the criminal defamation and Computer Crime charges against Andy Hall were tenable, particularly in light of constitutional protections for truthful information dissemination and public awareness. The primary issue before the Court was whether Hall’s collaboration with Finnwatch in publishing the report “Cheap Has a High Price” and disseminating its findings amounted to criminal defamation and a violation of the Computer Crime Act. The case also raised questions about the limits of freedom of expression when weighed against reputational harm.

The Prosecution on the one hand argued that Hall and Finnwatch published and disseminated false statements imputing that Natural Fruit Company engaged in forced labour, human trafficking, and other labour rights violations. These actions allegedly harmed the Plaintiff’s reputation on both domestic and international levels. The prosecution sought penalties under Sections 326, 328, and 332 of the Thai Criminal Code and Section 14 of the Computer Crime Act.

The Defendant on the other hand argued that the statements were based on credible research and represented truthful findings about human rights abuses. He contended that the charges violated constitutional protections for freedom of expression, particularly when exposing issues of public interest.

The legal claims were based on Sections 326, 328, and 332 of the Thai Criminal Code, which criminalise defamation, and Section 14 of the Computer Crime Act (B.E. 2550, 2007). However, the Court also considered amendments under the Computer-related Crime Act (No. 2) B.E. 2560, which clarified that defamation through computer systems does not constitute a Computer Crime unless there is specific intent to deceive.

Regarding the computer crime charges, the Court noted that the amended Computer-related Crime Act (No. 2) required dishonest and deceptive intent to prosecute such cases. It clarified that using a computer system to disseminate allegedly defamatory statements did not meet this criterion. Consequently, the Court held that Hall could not be prosecuted under the Computer Crime Act.

As for the defamation allegations, the Court found the prosecution’s witnesses unreliable, noting that Natural Fruit’s employees were in a vulnerable position and unlikely to provide impartial testimony. In contrast, the testimonies of former employees were deemed credible and consistent with the findings of the Finnwatch report and interviews with Burmese migrant workers.

These testimonies revealed significant labour violations at the plaintiff’s pineapple factory. Workers were frequently undocumented, including minors as young as 14, 15, and 17, and faced exploitation, such as withheld passports, illegal salary deductions, and sub-minimum wages. Child and undocumented labourers were reportedly hidden during inspections, and overtime was often mandatory, with wages lower than legally required. Additionally, workers lacked proper social security benefits, faced inconsistent salary deductions for social security fees, and were not compensated for workplace injuries or fatalities. Discriminatory practices between Burmese and Thai workers were also reported, alongside inadequate restroom facilities and penalties for extended restroom use. These findings collectively substantiated the claims of labour exploitation made in the Finnwatch report.

The Court also found that the defendant and Finnwatch made reasonable efforts to contact Natural Fruit to verify allegations, including emails and follow-ups via fax and phone. While Natural Fruit denied receiving these communications, cross-examination revealed that company representatives had received and ignored them. Unlike other factories that cooperated, Natural Fruit refused to engage, avoiding transparency and accountability. Finnwatch subsequently disseminated the findings, based on the defendant’s research, to relevant agencies responsible for monitoring, protecting, and promoting workers’ rights. The Court noted that this conduct demonstrated a fair and balanced approach, as Finnwatch had sought to verify facts and provide the plaintiff an opportunity to respond before publishing the report.

The Court further concluded that the statements deemed defamatory by the Plaintiff were factual observations about labour and human rights violations. These included breaches of Thailand’s labour protection laws and human trafficking, both of which infringe upon fundamental rights protected under Thailand’s constitution. The Court additionally held that informing the public about human trafficking and labour violations is a constitutionally protected act, affirming that individuals or organisations witnessing such offenses have the right to publicise them.

The Court finally emphasised that the actions of Hall and Finnwatch were deemed expressions of opinion or statements made in good faith and in the public interest, constituting fair comment on matters subject to public criticism, as provided under Section 329 (1) and (3) of the Criminal Code. It further underscored the constitutional protection afforded to truthful speech aimed at addressing human rights violations.

The Court accordingly dismissed the charges against Hall, finding that his statements were truthful and constitutionally protected. It also noted that the Computer Crime Act did not apply to defamation cases without specific intent to deceive.