Bangkok: A court of appeals in Thailand has handed a political activist what is believed to be a record sentence for the criminal offence of insulting the monarchy, giving him a 50-year prison term after finding him guilty of 25 violations of the law, a lawyer’s group said.
Mongkhon Thirakot, 30, had originally been sentenced last year to 28 years in prison by the provincial court in the northern province of Chiang Rai for 14 of 27 posts on Facebook for which he was charged.
Political activist Mongkhon Thirakot flashes the three finger pro-democracy gesture ahead of going to court.Credit: AP
Mongkhon was found guilty by the northern region court of appeals in Chiang Rai on Thursday not just in the 14 cases, but also in 11 of the 13 cases for which the lower court had acquitted him, the group Thai Lawyers for Human Rights announced.
The court of appeals sentenced him to an additional 22 years in prison, bringing his total to 50 years. Technically, he had been given a prison term of 75 years, but the sentence was cut by one-third in acknowledgement of his cooperation in the legal proceedings.
The law on insulting the monarchy, an offence known as lèse-majesté, carries a prison term of three to 15 years for each count. It’s often referred to as Article 112 after its designation in Thailand’s Criminal Code.
Loading
Critics say the law is often wielded as a tool to quash political dissent. Student-led pro-democracy protests beginning in 2020 openly criticised the monarchy, previously a taboo subject, leading to vigorous prosecutions under the law, which had previously been infrequently employed.
Since those protests, more than 260 people have been charged with the offence, according to the lawyers’ group.
The court of appeals reversed the lower court’s acquittals on the basis that the law applied in instances where it wasn’t the current monarch or his immediate family who were being referred to, which had been the standard for many years. However, as lèse-majesté prosecutions became more common over the last decade, the court case set a precedent by finding that past rulers were also covered by the law.









Add Category