Appeals Court Upholds 1-Year Jail for Lawyer Tam in Defamation Case
The user wants a short summary of the article, 1-2 sentences, 120-220 characters max 240. Must be in English only. No filler. Lead with what happened, then single most important detail. No quotes, no markdown. Key facts: Appeals Court uphel
On October 29, 2026, at the Nakhon Phanom Provincial Court, Sittha Bia-bang, known as "Lawyer Tam," appeared to hear the Region 4 Court of Appeals' ruling in a defamation-by-publication case. The case stemmed from a 2022 press conference regarding a 25-million-baht financial dispute that implicated a former political official and the family of former deputy House speaker Supachai Phosu.
The Appeals Court upheld the conviction of both defendants, sentencing each to one year in prison without suspension, and ordered them to jointly pay 300,000 baht in compensation. Sittha and businesswoman Chorchat Tochuwong were defendants 1 and 2, charged under Criminal Code Section 328 in conjunction with Section 83. The plaintiffs were Thonburi Sirikunakun, former aide to the second deputy House speaker; Supachai Phosu, former second deputy House speaker; and his daughter Supapani Phosu, who sought 10 million baht each, totaling 30 million baht.
The court ruled that although the press conference did not name individuals directly, the references to positions and relationships made the targets identifiable. Certain statements revealed private matters in a damaging manner, affecting the reputations of Thonburi and Supapani. The court found the actions were not good-faith comments or fair criticism for public benefit under defamation exceptions, and thus upheld convictions regarding plaintiffs 1 and 3.
Regarding Supachai, the court found that references to his position and relationship merely identified the person involved in the dispute and did not accuse him of participating in fraud, so the defamation charge was dismissed and his compensation claim denied.
On sentencing, the court noted both defendants consistently denied wrongdoing and no mitigating factors warranted a reduction from the lower court's two-year term. However, considering the circumstances, the two-year sentence was deemed excessive, so it was reduced to one year each without suspension. The court refused to suspend the sentence because the defendants' press conference appeared aimed at influencing the dispute without regard for the victims' reputations and duties, and no sufficient grounds existed for suspension.
For damages, the court upheld the lower court's order of 100,000 baht to Thonburi, but reduced the award to Supapani from 500,000 to 200,000 baht with interest, totaling 300,000 baht jointly owed by both defendants. Supachai's 500,000 baht claim was dismissed as the defendants' actions regarding him did not constitute defamation.
The case originated in December 2022 when both defendants held a press conference and posted online about the 25-million-baht dispute, alleging that defendant 1 was defrauded by a former political official.
