The court sentenced the two defendants each to 4 months and 16 days in prison and a fine of B15,000, reports the Bangkok Post. The jail sentences were suspended for two years.
The two senior cadets were identified only as Pipat and Phumipat. The court cited the defendants’ lack of prior offences and said punishing them further would not serve any useful purpose.
Allowing them to continue serving the country would be of greater benefit, according to the military court.
Phakaphong "Mei" Tanyakan died on Oct 17, 2017, after being subject to "disciplinary punishment" enforced by Pipat and Phumipat, but the details were largely withheld. The mystery surrounding his death sparked public uproar.
His family filed a lawsuit against the two senior cadets for assault leading to death, and against one instructor for negligence resulting in death. Because the defendants were military personnel and the incident occurred within military jurisdiction, the case was tried in the military court system.
The case was initially heard in the Military Court of First Instance in 2018 and 2019. The court ruled to suspend sentencing for the two senior cadets on charges of assault. Other charges were dismissed by investigators and some prosecutors due to a lack of sufficient eyewitnesses.
In October 2023, the Court of Appeal upheld some parts of the lower court’s ruling.
The Supreme Military Court has now issued a definitive ruling, finding the two defendants guilty on charges of assault and of punishing a fellow cadet in violation of orders.
Speaking after the court’s final judgement, the dead cadet’s mother, Mrs Sukanya, was clearly upset.
She raised the following questions:
“If it were an ordinary student or civilian, we might be able to understand. But these are cadets in command positions, individuals expected to uphold the law, and yet they were the ones who broke it. That raises the question: how much good can they truly do for the country in the future?.
“And how can we trust government officials who behave in this way to carry out their duties for the benefit of the nation?
“Our family has never believed in them, not since the incident occurred. Not once have they come forward to apologise,” Mrs Sukanya said.
There was initially a third defendant in the case, an instructor identified as 2nd Lt Piyapong (commissioned officer-to-be). The court of first instance decided not to indict him.