Thai judge dies after second suicide attempt

9 April 2020 · Carmel Rickard

The Thai judge who attempted suicide in court during October 2019 , has died after shooting himself in the heart. Judge Khanakorn Pianchana was protesting at what he said was interference in a politically-charged trial over which he presided. His death last month has been marked by statements of sympathy and concern by a number of international human rights organisations. Before his second, successful, suicide attempt, the judge wrote about his despair over structural problems in the judiciary that allowed for interference in decisions. He also wrote about his sadness at losing a job he loved.

Judge Khanakorn Pianchana, 50, had been serving as deputy presiding judge of the Yala Provincial Court.

In October 2019 he made world headlines when he claimed to have been ordered by a more senior judge to re-write a decision in which he acquitted five people charged with murder. Judge Khanakorn found there was not enough evidence to convict the men. They had allegedly been connected with an insurgency in the south of the country.

Instructions

Faced with instructions to issue a finding with which he did not agree, Judge Khanakorn shot himself in court. He survived however and was treated in hospital.

After he recovered, he was investigated by the Judicial Commission on disciplinary charges; he was transferred to another court and he was also the subject of investigations for allegedly committing criminal offences under the country's firearms legislation.

According to the Bangkok Post the judge’s suicide note, left by way of a farewell letter on Facebook, expressed his despair with the judicial system, and said that he could not bear losing a job he loved so much and also mentioned conviction in a criminal case.

Suspect

‘I was later investigated and charged and became a suspect in a criminal case,’ he wrote. ‘I do believe that I will be dismissed from government service. Legal proceedings against me have also started. Being deprived of a job I love means a loss of one’s true self.’

After posting his farewell message, Judge Khanakorn shot himself in the heart. His wife and daughter were out at the time, and his wife found him critically wounded when she returned.

His actions have focused considerable attention, in Thailand and from without, on the system of justice in that country.

Court

The International Commission of Jurists, one of many organisations to mark his death, said that the secretary-general of the Office of the Judiciary had given an interview on the subject of his death on 7 March 2020. In that interview, the official said that an initial investigation had found ‘no improper interference’ with Judge Khanakorn’s work. The official added that the disciplinary actions and criminal chargesCourt that the judge was facing at the time of his death ‘were based on his actions for carrying a gun into court and using the gun to attempt suicide.’

An editorial in the Bangkok Post says that the judiciary ‘owes answers’ and that his ‘sudden tragic death’ left many questions.

The paper said that the judge’s FB statement included 'messages' such as ‘Return justice to the people’ and ‘Return rulings to the judges’, and added to the controversy about the state of the Thai justice system.

Democratic

The judge had also highlighted what he clearly viewed as a structural problem with the judicial system. He mentioned the constitution of 1997, widely seen as democratic. Under that constitution, however, ‘reviewing a ruling at the first-court level was not allowed. Why is that? Could it be the drafters knew such a review could pave the way of interference in a ruling by regional court presidents?’

‘The current system could not save a dedicated judge like Khanakorn,’ added the editorial. ‘His death will not only sadden the public but also trigger further curiosity and doubt about exactly what is going wrong in our system. Only those in the judiciary can provide answers. Continued silence is no longer an option.’

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.