Judge in Yingluck case ruled her ‘not guilty’

[NCFC]

Pison Pirun, a judge in the nine-member Supreme Court panel that ruled in the case over the rice-pledging scheme against ex-PM Yingluck Shinawatra case, was the only judge to rule her not guilty on the grounds that “she lacked the intention to cause loss or seek advantage she was not entitled to”.

 
While the esteemed judge may be entitled to her opinion, she is dead wrong on the law.  Negligence means failing to conform one's conduct to the applicable standard of care ("reasonable man standard")  and no intent to cause loss or to seek advantage is required.
 

Criminal Code Section 59.  Intention or Negligence.  To commit an act by negligence is to commit an offence unintentionally but without exercising such care as might be expected from a person under such condition and circumstances, and the doer could exercise such care but did not do so sufficiently.

 
If Yingluck wanted to escape liability, she could have pushed through a constitutional amendment to immunize elected officials from negligence claims, as most democracies do.  In the alternative, she could have done her job, rather than occupy her time with shopping extravaganzas and encouraging PTP to illegally grant amnesty to her big brother.

The dissenting judge didn't rule whether her actions were intentional or not but whether she caused loss intentionally or not. There is a difference.

Sent from my G7-L01 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[metisdead]

Some more posts and replies not related to "Judge in Yingluck case ruled her ‘not guilty’ " have been removed.  

[Dogmatix]

Q. Was there a concerted effort made to engineer a sequence of events that would eventually succeed in ejecting Yingluck out of the country for good, or at least for the foreseeable future? 

 

A. Probably.

 

Q. Did she receive the fairest possible treatment over the issue of the consideration of assets confiscation related to the civil case contemporaneous to her criminal trial?  

 

A. Questionable. Although there was certainly merit in the argument that the statute of limitations in the civil case might have expired, while waiting for the criminal case to finish, there were no known precedents for this to my knowledge.  Civil courts traditionally wait for criminal actions to be completed.

 

Q. Was the ruling that she was guilty of dereliction of duty by failing to set up an objective committee to investigate credible allegations of corruption involving members of her cabinet sound? 

 

A.  Undoubtedly.    

     

Q.  Is it fair that she was convicted of dereliction of duty while members of this and previous administrations are unlikely to ever face justice for similar and even more serious corruption related offences?

 

A. No, but that does not detract from her guilt or the soundness of the majority ruling.    

 

I rest my case.

[Dogmatix]

18 hours ago, NCFC said:

 
While the esteemed judge may be entitled to her opinion, she is dead wrong on the law.  Negligence means failing to conform one's conduct to the applicable standard of care ("reasonable man standard")  and no intent to cause loss or to seek advantage is required.
 
 
If Yingluck wanted to escape liability, she could have pushed through a constitutional amendment to immunize elected officials from negligence claims, as most democracies do.  In the alternative, she could have done her job, rather than occupy her time with shopping extravaganzas and encouraging PTP to illegally grant amnesty to her big brother.

The dissenting judge didn't rule whether her actions were intentional or not but whether she caused loss intentionally or not. There is a difference.

Sent from my G7-L01 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

Thank you. I believe this is at the crux of the divergence of opinion between Judge Pison and the other justices.  Pison felt that, in order to convict, it needed to be proved that Yingluck had the intention to cause losses to the state.  In the eyes of the other judges dereliction of duty was proved by the fact that she approved the setting up of a sham committee to investigate the allegations, whereas an objective committee should have uncovered the wrongdoing and prevented further losses.  In their view, it was dereliction of duty that she had the intent not to allow the allegations, which turned out to be true, to be investigated objectively.  

[AGareth2]

2 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

In their view, it was dereliction of duty that she had the intent not to allow the allegations, which turned out to be true, to be investigated objectively.  

my God, that's a mouthful

translation please

[Dogmatix]

22 minutes ago, AGareth2 said:

my God, that's a mouthful

translation please

 

She intended to allow those who were subsequently convicted of corruption to investigate themselves. Whether she knew they were guilty at the time or not was irrelevant. She did not insist on an independent commission of enquiry. 

[AGareth2]

7 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

She intended to allow those who were subsequently convicted of corruption to investigate themselves. Whether she knew they were guilty at the time or not was irrelevant. She did not insist on an independent commission of enquiry. 

so she acted naively?

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, AGareth2 said:

so she acted naively?

No. She did what Thaksin told her to do.

[sjaak327]

5 hours ago, Dogmatix said:

 

She intended to allow those who were subsequently convicted of corruption to investigate themselves. Whether she knew they were guilty at the time or not was irrelevant. She did not insist on an independent commission of enquiry. 

Hmm, I would believe the question if she knew, or suspected that they were guilty should be very relevant. If this all boils down to her failure to insist on an independent commission of enquiry to use your own words, I believe the conviction is indeed not sound. Let's see how this precedent is applied in the future. Me thinks Prayuth and CO already violated this principle multiple times during their tenure.