This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/world/asia/thailand-andy-hall-defamation-activist.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Thailand Court Clears U.K. Labor Activist of Defaming Fruit Company Thailand Court Clears U.K. Labor Activist of Defaming Fruit Company
(about 11 hours later)
HONG KONG — A British labor activist who accused a Thai fruit company of abusing migrant workers was cleared of a criminal defamation charge by Thailand’s highest court on Thursday.HONG KONG — A British labor activist who accused a Thai fruit company of abusing migrant workers was cleared of a criminal defamation charge by Thailand’s highest court on Thursday.
But a separate conviction against the activist, Andy Hall, still stands, and Mr. Hall said on Thursday that he would appeal it and sue the company, Natural Fruit, as well as Thailand’s attorney general and others. But a separate conviction against the activist, Andy Hall, stands, and Mr. Hall said on Thursday that he would appeal it and sue the company, Natural Fruit, as well as Thailand’s attorney general and others.
“I feel very uncomfortable because as human rights activists, we want to spend our time doing productive, forward-moving work, and not sitting in court,” Mr. Hall said by telephone. “But this company will not stop its harassment, and the government is not doing anything to stem the harassment.”“I feel very uncomfortable because as human rights activists, we want to spend our time doing productive, forward-moving work, and not sitting in court,” Mr. Hall said by telephone. “But this company will not stop its harassment, and the government is not doing anything to stem the harassment.”
Rights groups and the United Nations have objected to the prosecution of Mr. Hall, who lives in Thailand. He has been caught up in the country’s legal system since 2013, when he contributed to a report by a Finnish advocacy group that accused Natural Fruit of violating the rights of migrant workers from Myanmar.Rights groups and the United Nations have objected to the prosecution of Mr. Hall, who lives in Thailand. He has been caught up in the country’s legal system since 2013, when he contributed to a report by a Finnish advocacy group that accused Natural Fruit of violating the rights of migrant workers from Myanmar.
The defamation charge dismissed on Thursday by the Supreme Court in Bangkok was brought by Natural Fruit after comments Mr. Hall made about the company to the cable news network Al Jazeera in 2013. That charge, which carried a possible one-year prison sentence and a fine, was dismissed by two lower courts, and the high court on Thursday agreed that Mr. Hall could not be prosecuted for the comments under Thai law because he was in Myanmar when he spoke to Al Jazeera. The defamation charge dismissed on Thursday by the Supreme Court in Bangkok was brought by Natural Fruit after comments Mr. Hall made about the company to Al Jazeera in 2013. That charge, which carried a possible one-year prison sentence and a fine, was dismissed by two lower courts, and the high court on Thursday agreed that Mr. Hall could not be prosecuted for the comments under Thai law because he was in Myanmar when he spoke to the network.
Mr. Hall was convicted in September of a separate defamation charge brought by Natural Fruit over the report, as well as a related computer crimes charge. He was fined about $4,300 and given a three-year prison sentence in that case, but the sentence was suspended for two years, meaning Mr. Hall would remain free if he committed no crimes during that time. Mr. Hall was convicted in September of a separate defamation charge brought by Natural Fruit over the report, as well as a related computer crimes charge. He was fined about $4,300 and given a three-year sentence in that case; it was suspended for two years, meaning Mr. Hall would remain free if he committed no crimes during that time.
Mr. Hall said on Thursday that he had yet to receive a copy of that court’s September judgment but that he planned to appeal the conviction as soon as he received it. He said he would also sue a number of players in the case dismissed on Thursday — including Natural Fruit, a local police department, prosecution witnesses and Thailand’s attorney general — for what he called perjury, wrongful prosecution and other violations of due process. Mr. Hall said Thursday that he had yet to get a copy of the September judgment but that he planned to appeal. He said he would also sue a number of players in the dismissed case — including Natural Fruit, a local police department, prosecution witnesses and Thailand’s attorney general — for what he called perjury, wrongful prosecution and other violations of due process.
The owner of Natural Fruit is Wirat Piyapornpaiboon, the elder brother of former Labor Minister Chalermchai Sri-on, according to Finnwatch, the advocacy group that published the 2013 report about the company’s labor practices. Finnwatch’s report, “Cheap Has a High Price,” found that Natural Fruit had confiscated the passports of migrant workers from Myanmar, paid them less than the minimum wage and subjected them to poor and sometimes dangerous working conditions. The owner of Natural Fruit is Wirat Piyapornpaiboon, a brother of a former labor minister, according to Finnwatch, the advocacy group that published the 2013 report about the company’s labor practices. Finnwatch’s report, “Cheap Has a High Price,” found that Natural Fruit had confiscated the passports of migrant workers from Myanmar, paid them less than the minimum wage and subjected them to poor and sometimes dangerous working conditions.
In September, Kachin Komneeyawanich, the company’s vice president, said the report had caused “colossal” damage to the company’s profits and reputation. On Thursday, he said by telephone that he believed the Supreme Court’s ruling had rested unfairly on what he called a legal technicality. He said he would monitor Mr. Hall’s future comments in the news media and would consider taking further legal action against him. In September, Kachin Komneeyawanich, the company’s vice president, said the report had caused “colossal” damage to the company. On Thursday, he said by telephone that he believed the Supreme Court’s ruling had rested unfairly on what he called a legal technicality. “We are the victim,” Mr. Kachin said.
“We are the victim,” Mr. Kachin said. One of Mr. Hall’s lawyers, Sira Osottham, said the prosecutors from the Natural Fruit defamation case were preparing to bring another case against individuals and organizations that were harming the reputation of a different food processing company that Mr. Hall has criticized.
One of Mr. Hall’s lawyers, Sira Osottham, said the same prosecutors from the Natural Fruit defamation case were preparing to bring another case against individuals and organizations that were harming the reputation of a different food-processing company that Mr. Hall has criticized. Mr. Hall said that he could not yet comment on that case or say whether he would continue living in Thailand but that he was “deeply concerned” about his legal situation and security.
Mr. Hall said he could not yet comment on the details of that case or say whether he would continue living in Thailand, but he said he was “deeply concerned” about his legal situation and his personal security.
Rights groups and Western governments have accused Thailand of failing to prevent widespread abuses of migrant workers, including forced labor.Rights groups and Western governments have accused Thailand of failing to prevent widespread abuses of migrant workers, including forced labor.