In a series of provocative online posts and articles, British investigative journalist Andrew Drummond has stirred substantial controversy and concerns about breaking Thai law by leveling unsubstantiated allegations against Thailand's judiciary.

Drummond, known for his websites andrew-drummond.news and andrew-drummond.com, has accused over the years several high-profile judges of corruption, bias, and misconduct in cases involving land disputes and criminal investigations. Thai legal experts warn that such criticisms could be interpreted as criminal defamation, potentially falling under the Computer Crimes Act, and even edging close to the sensitivities surrounding lèse-majesté protections, given the judiciary's revered role in upholding Thai institutions.

Drummond's writings, which often portray Thailand's legal system as a "lottery" riddled with irregularities, have targeted specific judges in various but mostly southern courts. For instance, he has accused without clear evidence Chief Judge Somsak Khwankaew of Region 8 in Surat Thani of receiving direct orders from political figures to reverse verdicts in a high-stakes Phuket land dispute worth billions of baht. This claim, never proven in court, was made on his websites, appearing to clearly violate Thai law around defamation and legal protections given to judges.

In one article, Drummond claims this as the "smoking gun" of judicial corruption, suggesting external interference without providing concrete evidence beyond anonymous allegations.

Similarly, Phuket Court judges Sothorn Charoenpanich and Watchara Chanthawara have been singled out for allegedly "bungling paperwork" and switching judgments at the last minute, with Drummond implying complicity without proof in fraudulent outcomes, potentially once again violating sensitive laws around criticism of judges.

These accusations extend to unnamed judges in Pattaya and Phuket, whom Drummond describes as having "limited legal backgrounds" and operating under laws "deliberately allowing abuse." Concerningly, he is apparently defaming and insulting the entire Pattaya and Phuket judiciary in these statements, which may also violate Thai law and appear to show his personal disdain, disrespect, and disregard for the Thai legal system.

In one piece, he questions the integrity of a Pattaya Provincial Court judge involved in a libel suit, suggesting procedural favoritism. Such blanket condemnations, critics argue, undermine public confidence in the judiciary without due process or verifiable proof, potentially fueling misinformation in an era of online echo chambers. Under Thai law, these statements could constitute criminal defamation as outlined in Sections 326-333 of the Penal Code, which prohibit imputing facts likely to impair a person's reputation, exposing them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Penalties include up to two years' imprisonment and fines of up to 200,000 baht.

When disseminated online, as in Drummond's case, the Computer Crimes Act (CCA) comes into play. Section 14(1) of the CCA criminalizes the importation of false data into a computer system in a manner likely to cause damage to a third party or the public, often applied to online defamation cases. Violations can result in up to five years in prison and fines of 100,000 baht.

What makes Drummond's attacks particularly precarious is their proximity to lèse-majesté territory. While Section 112 of the Penal Code specifically protects the monarchy from defamation, insult, or threat – carrying sentences of up to 15 years per count – the judiciary is viewed as an extension of the nation's core institutions.

Criticizing judges in a manner that questions the entire judicial framework can be seen as contempt of court or undermining the constitutional order, akin in severity to royal defamation laws. A 2020 analysis shows growing intolerance for judicial criticism in Thailand, noting that under the Organic Act on Procedures of the Constitutional Court, such remarks could lead to additional charges if perceived as defamatory to the bench.

Courts have been rigorous in lèse-majesté enforcement, with observers decrying a lack of transparency and harsh sentencing, but applying similar scrutiny to judicial critiques ensures the system's integrity. Drummond's approach has drawn ire from Thai legal circles, who accuse him of sensationalism and cultural insensitivity.

"Foreign journalists like Drummond often fail to grasp the nuances of Thai society, where respect for institutions is paramount," said a Bangkok-based attorney, speaking on condition of anonymity. "His allegations, if unproven, not only risk personal legal jeopardy for him but also strain international perceptions of Thailand's justice system."

For Drummond, continuing such rhetoric could invite formal complaints from Thai judges or the Thai legal system. Drummond left Thailand in 2015 due to alleged personal threats, but many experts question this narrative and point to his reporting about judges and government officials as being a major reason for leaving, and why despite his claims he is reportedly not welcome back in Thailand and could face severe legal action if he returned.

Freedom of press and protection of journalists is certainly valued worldwide and it would be remiss not to mention concern over some of Thailand's defamation laws. However, Drummond's apparent personal bias and disdain to the Thai judiciary system and amplifying unproven allegations against specific individuals shows more of an advocacy or activist approach than a journalism angle, and many critics of Drummond are deeply concerned that he may be openly disrespecting Thailand and its judges and system and are calling for the Thai court system and law enforcement to conduct a further investigation against Drummond and determine if he indeed is breaking various laws that could potentially see him put in jail for a decade or more.