The court ruled that new evidence and witnesses were gathered more than two years after the crime, during which time the evidence could have been fabricated. Physical evidence presented in his bid for a retrial was not “credible”, the ruling stated.

New eyewitness testimony presented to Justice Ministry officials clashed with testimony given to police during the arrest of another suspect in the case, while other witnesses were not at the scene of the crime, the ruling stated. The court concluded that Passakorn did not have new evidence that was sufficient to prove his innocence.

Although an unnamed suspect later confessed to the murder, the court stated he was motivated by Justice Ministry officials and Passakorn’s family, while lie-detector results did not provide clear or accurate results.

The court dismissed the family’s request for a retrial and ordered that Passakorn, who had been released on bail pending the Supreme Court verdict after serving over five years behind bars, be returned to prison. He will be sent to jail where he will be eligible to apply for a sentence reduction available for prisoners who have served a third of their sentence.

Passakorn’s lawyer Khomhan Paisuwan said the fact that the unnamed suspect had met Passakorn in jail cast doubt on his client’s claim of innocence.

The lawyer said he would apply for Passakorn’s jail term to be reduced, as he had already served a third of his sentence. Khomhan said Passakorn wished to prove his innocence and had used the right to apply for a criminal case retrial, so he was proud that he had tried and would accept the court verdict.

Passakorn’s parents Somchai and Sanoh Sangkhee, who believe their son is innocent, had also asked the Justice Ministry to help apply for a retrial. They broke down in tears after the verdict was read and relatives had to help them walk out of the court.

His father Somchai tearfully said that no one had helped his innocent son, while his sobbing mother Sanoh later fell to her knees in front of the court staircase. “What would you do if it were your family member who was sent to jail?” she asked.

Sanoh said her hopes to help her son had been crushed after almost a decade, adding that she would submit a petition to the King.

In Bangkok, Suebpong Sripongkul, a spokesman for the Courts of Justice, said that given the Supreme Court refusal to grant a retrial, Passakorn would have to complete his original 20-year jail term. He also said that earlier reports stating that the case was the first retrial under the Retrial of Criminal Cases Act 1983 were incorrect. He said there had been other petitions for retrials that the Supreme Court had also dismissed.

A source said the Region 1 Appeals Court asked the Sing Buri Provincial Court to hold hearings on “new evidence” in Passakorn’s request for a retrial. Those hearings were held on February 12 and March 2 in 2015. The Sing Buri Court was ordered on May 29, 2015 to take up the retrial request in line with the 1983 Retrial Act.

The provincial court’s findings and judges’ opinions were then submitted to the Supreme Court.

Tourism Minister Kobkarn Wattanawarangkul has to step in by holding a meeting with authorities concerned at the airport. Police have to relocate to new floor those who said they paid fees, ranging from Bt15,000 to Bt20,000, to a firm, Wealth Ever, for a trip to Japan between April 13 and 15, to give space for other passengers. Their numbers are said of them were reported to be about 1,500.

The airport is already crowded with Thais going out of the country during the long holidays of Songkran. Police are told that there would be a lot more of passengers, about 2,000 who are scheduled to travel with the firm in trouble coming to the airport on Wednesday.

Of that Bt2.65 million outlay, Bt450,000 is spent during visits to her former constituents and supporters in Bangkok and other provinces, while about Bt1 million is listed as household expenses.

In addition, the former prime minister spends another Bt200,000 per month to cover her young son’s education and other expenses. She told the court her expenditure on legal expenses is about Bt200,000 per month, while her personal spending budget is about Bt800,000.

The figures were cited to back her petition for the Central Administrative Court to grant an injunction ahead of the government’s bid to seize her assets.

Yingluck is facing a civil liability lawsuit in which the government is seeking Bt35 billion in compensation to cover alleged financial damage caused by her previous government’s ricepledging scheme.

The government’s factfinding committee concluded that the unlimited ricepledging scheme had led to a Bt500 billion loss for the government. Yingluck, it contended, was partly accountable for the financial damages due to her failed supervision of the scheme.

On Monday, the court by a majority dismissed Yingluck’s request for an injunction, reasoning that the government had not proceeded to seize her assets at this stage.

A minority of two judges on the court’s panel had argued for granting the injunction on grounds that Yingluck would be damaged by the government’s civil liability action while other related lawsuits were still pending in court.

Panuphun Chairat, deputy directorgeneral of the Central Administrative Court, took the view that impartiality in this civil liability lawsuit seeking the massive compensation from the expremier was questionable given that the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) had seized power from a civilian government in 2014.

Another judge on the panel, Watchira Chobtaeng, said that the government’s attempt to seek the massive compensation from Yingluck may not be legal. In addition, the expremier would not be able to live a normal life if the government moved to seize her assets while all related lawsuits were still pending.

The two judges believed that the court should provide temporary protection to Yingluck by granting the injunction.

A source at the Royal Thai Police said on Tuesday that Assistant Police Commissioner General, Pol Lt-General Wittaya Prayongpan, sent a letter to the Land Transport Department (LTD) director-general last Friday regarding the proposal under the Automobile Act 1979.

The letter said that police had implemented the traffic regulation that required all passenger seats to have seat belts. They have received complaints from many private pickup truck drivers saying they needed to carry passengers in the extended cab and open cargo bed.

Police have asked the LTD to consider criteria that allows people who need to use pickup trucks to carry more passengers than can be accommodated in seats with seat belts in certain circumstances. This would prevent drivers from having to register vehicles as “personal pickup trucks for more than seven passengers”.

Police suggested that the LTD follow three guidelines:

1. The extended cab space behind the front seats of certain two-door pickup truck models could have seat belts installed so they could carry passengers.

2. Pickup trucks with an open cargo bed, if required to carry passengers, could be allowed for up to six persons with hand rails and seat belts if possible.

3. Trucks allowed to carry passengers in the cargo bed must drive at less than 80 kilometres per hour in municipal areas.

Tuesday was also the day when a new requirement came into effect that required the drivers of passenger vans on fixed routes to remove excess seats to meet the 13-seat limit. Failure to comply could result in a Bt5,000 fine and a licence suspension of up to six months, said Deputy Transport Minister Pichit Akkharathit. The new law covered 15,808 passenger vans registered nationwide.