The multiple lawsuits against British human rights defender Andy Hall came at a bad time for him and others who value free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Since the May 22 coup, martial law has put bans, restrictions and a general pause on such values. It was encouraging to note, then, that the court last week actually stepped in to halt an attempt to punish Mr Hall over a report he wrote on migrant labour.
The victory by Andy Hall in the case brought by the pineapple processing giant Natural Fruit Co was based on a technicality. The judges at the Phra Khanong Criminal Court did not get to the central issues. They tossed out the Natural Fruit suit because the police botched the investigation of the case. Mr Hall and supporters were enthusiastic over their courtroom victory. Their celebration was deserved but could prove premature.
Wirat Piyapornpaiboon, head of the company, vowed to appeal. He and his lawyers have launched a spate of lawsuits against Mr Hall — both criminal and civil. Courts will hear and rule on them all, but it seems that Natural Fruit has decided to pursue the cases as sheer retribution.
The lawsuits spring from a report that Mr Hall wrote for the European NGO Finnwatch. It alleged that Natural Fruit used slave labour and child labour, paid wages under the legal limit, and forced employees to work long hours. Mr Wirat has denied all of this. He claims he can regain personal and corporate honour only through defamation, libel and slander laws, the latter because a major bone of contention is an interview Mr Hall gave to the Al Jazeera TV network.
To many it appears that Natural Fruit, unable to prevent publication and the now-widespread dissemination of the report, has a two-item agenda. One is to punish Andy Hall and Finnwatch with huge judgements for damages. For example, a civil case open at the Nakhon Pathom Court demands 300 million baht in damages.
The other is to serve a warning. Natural Fruit, like big government agencies and corporations, has infinite staff and money to try to enforce its will. The current government has martial law, which trumps everything. The criminal defamation laws and the misnamed Computer Crime Act can be both used and abused. Every citizen is welcome to file cases, which must be investigated and often are pursued by police and prosecutors.
Natural Fruit had several responses at its disposable when Mr Hall's report was issued. One was to engage Finnwatch and the report's charges in public. If the company is not party to the undoubted human trafficking and slavery that exists in the country, it could present evidence. If it found abuses inside its factories and personnel departments, it could gain plaudits by correcting them.
The company took the opposite tack. It went after Mr Hall with disparate charges in numerous courts. The criminal charges, in sum, could conceivably send Mr Hall to prison for several decades. The damages demanded would go far beyond impoverishing him.
When the National Reform Council gets to work on legal matters, one hopes it will confront abuses of laws concerning defamation, as well as lese majeste. The current system provides too much opportunity to silence valid and needed criticism. The ability to tie up Mr Hall and NGOs in what could be years of litigation should be examined by reformers, who should have an eye on protecting free speech, and preventing legal abuse.