The requirement to notify authorities should also take the form of a notice of intent, and not a request for permission. This is essential to recognise that spontaneous assemblies, due to their nature and character of organisation, would make it impossible for the organisers to notify within the set time limits. However, the notification restriction in the Public Assembly Act does not recognise this, and thus, discriminates against spontaneous public assemblies. NCPO Announcement No. 7/2014, Order No. 3/2015 and the Public Assembly Act do not respect the right of individuals to use public spaces. As stated, most of these highlighted cases involve public assemblies at shopping malls or national-historical landmark or commemoration sites. However, these laws have been used to disrupt the use of public spaces for assemblies. The use of these spaces is integral to the success of the assembly in conveying its message, as typically, these public spaces are chosen based on the specific target audience of the assembly. Local ordinances and low-level criminal law are also used to repress public assemblies. For example, the Cleanliness and Good Order Act has been used against activities such as scattering post-it notes and distributing leaflets, and the Amplifier Act 1950 has been used against many organisers of street activities. Contempt of court Contempt of court laws in Thailand are broadly distinguished between “insult of the court” (conventionally, indirect contempt) and “contempt of court” (direct contempt). Provisions governing “insult of the court” are found in Section 198 of the Penal Code, which states: Section 31 of the Civil Procedure Code53 lists types of behaviour that qualify as contempt of court offences. These are: • Refusal to comply with any directions given by the court. • Improper behaviour within the court’s precincts. • Presenting false evidence or statement(s) to the court during an inquiry to have the court’s fee waived. • Intentionally evading court orders if said party knows that they will be served with a Court order or document(s). • Inspecting the file(s) of a case or obtaining a copy of the file(s). • Disobeying a court order to appear in court. These actions fall into the direct contempt category. Section 33 of the Civil Procedure Code states: Where in any court, any party or person commits contempt of court, the court shall have the power to punish the offender whether to order him or her to leave the court room or sentence up to 6 months in prison or fine up to 500 Baht or both. These provisions in the Civil Procedure Code grant the court special and arbitrary powers to punish an “offender” immediately without having to conduct an inquiry or witness examination or allowing the defendant to face trial. In addition, contempt proceedings are conducted in a different manner to a normal criminal proceeding in these ways: • Judges in contempt cases have the power to deliver a verdict and sentence (if convicted) to defendants immediately, if the offence happened before the judges. This is intended for the proceedings to run smoothly. Supreme Court Decision No. 4617/2004 states that this immediate-sentencing power does not depend on whether the offence was conducted in visible sight of the court or if the court knows about the offence from other evidence. In addition, the offence does not have to be reported to the police. It is clear that the rights of the defendants to trial proceedings are violated. • Supreme Court Decision No. 635/2016 established that the trial proceedings for a contempt case are not a general criminal trial proceeding. The rights of the defendant set out in the Criminal Whoever insults the Court or the judge in a trial or adjudication of the case, or obstructs the trial of adjudication of the Court, shall be punished with imprisonment of one to seven years or fined of 2,000 to 14,000 Baht, or both. The provision governing “contempt of court” (direct contempt) is found in Section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code, which states: The Court shall have the power to give to any party or any third person present in the Court such directions as it may think necessary for the maintenance of order within the precincts of the Court and for the fair and speedy carrying out of the trial. Such power includes the power to prohibit the parties from taking any vexatious, dilatory or superfluous proceeding. 53 English translation sourced from: https://www.imolin.org/doc/ amlid/Thailand_The%20Civil%20Procedure%20Code.pdf 136 / Unshackling Expression