EC Accepts Failure In Thai Democrat Cases

[webfact]

EC accepts failure in Democrat cases

By The Nation

The Election Commission yesterday conceded defeat over the second Democrat Party dissolution case related to a Bt258-million campaign contribution.

"The Constitution Court has clearly outlined the steps that must be taken before petitioning for a judicial review on party disbandment," EC secretary-general Suthiphon Taveechaiyagarn said.

In Thursday's verdict, the high court dismissed the case on grounds of unlawful procedure because the political party registrar had failed to draw a conclusion to pave the way for a judicial review.

Suthiphon said the misstep happened because public prosecutors and the EC legal team had jointly agreed that the party registrar had finalised his decision for prosecution of the dissolution case, but they overlooked the requirement to draw a conclusion on the case before petitioning the high court.

The high court set a precedent that the party registrar must rule on the cause of guilt before seeking to disband a political party, he said.

Commenting on the court's dismissal of the case without ruling on the alleged offence, he said he would have to seek a further instruction from EC chairman Apichart Sukhagganond and four EC members on whether the commission will rectify the misstep and petition for a retrial.

Democrat MP Wiratana Kalayasir said he believed the EC had no actual plans to retry the case but was floating the idea as a way to test sentiment.

Wiratana was reacting to remarks about the possibility of a second

trial by EC member Prapun Naigowit.

Under a universal legal principle, the prosecution is not allowed to try the same case twice, the MP said.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva cast doubt on whether the EC would have legal justification to try the Democrats again on the first case involving the alleged misuse of Bt29 million in state funds or the second case.

If the EC keeps on trying the Democrats again and again, then there will be no end to the judicial process, he said.

He also dismissed speculation that the Democrats would seek disbandment of the opposition Pheu Thai Party as a reprisal for bringing up charges against them.

-- The Nation 2010-12-11

[Pib]

Was the failure premeditated or incompetence?

[Thailand]

Was the failure premeditated or incompetence?

Whatever the case neither the judiciary or the Dems came out smelling of roses.

[rubl]

Was the failure premeditated or incompetence?

Looks more like lack of clear laws, regulations and jurisprudence. Lots of countries had to work ages on it to get it in a decent shape

[slipperx]

Was the failure premeditated or incompetence?

Looks more like lack of clear laws, regulations and jurisprudence. Lots of countries had to work ages on it to get it in a decent shape

Well if the correct procedure was not followed then the court was right to follow the law and throw the case out. The same thing happens in the UK and I would imagine in most other countries with a developed legal system. However the legal system in Thailand could do with some improvement. The lack of legal precedent is one thing that should be addressed - since in Thailand I understand that a decision by a higher court need not be considered in a similar case in a lower court with similar circumstances. Obviously every case rests on its particular details but a claimant or defendant is basically left to the whim of the judge presiding over his case even where a clear precedent has been set by a higher court. This is how I understand things and it begs corruption and bribery.

It seems sometimes the law is designed to facilitate bribery and corruption rather than prevent it which is a very dangerous thing in a country so throughly corrupt at all levels as is Thailand. I also thing the Thai language is generally somewhat vague and unspecific and I would imagine this tendency follows through in the way the laws are written to some extent at least. That leaves a lot of wiggle room.

[animatic]

Was the failure premeditated or incompetence?

Well that certainly IS the question of the week.

They were under extreme duress to reverse their long standing decisions to not indict.

They were invaded and they and their families were threatened and only then did they

hastily file the charges. Now they have 'hastily' to fall back on, 'we were rushed',

the face saving out, but also by making important, but small mistakes,

their original intent is arrived at, while getting the red horde off their backs.

Enough ambiguity and wiggle room to save face that all ends get joined,

EXCEPT the red shirts ends. hmmm

[phiphidon]

Was the failure premeditated or incompetence?

Looks more like lack of clear laws, regulations and jurisprudence. Lots of countries had to work ages on it to get it in a decent shape

Well if the correct procedure was not followed then the court was right to follow the law and throw the case out. The same thing happens in the UK and I would imagine in most other countries with a developed legal system. However the legal system in Thailand could do with some improvement. The lack of legal precedent is one thing that should be addressed - since in Thailand I understand that a decision by a higher court need not be considered in a similar case in a lower court with similar circumstances. Obviously every case rests on its particular details but a claimant or defendant is basically left to the whim of the judge presiding over his case even where a clear precedent has been set by a higher court. This is how I understand things and it begs corruption and bribery.

It seems sometimes the law is designed to facilitate bribery and corruption rather than prevent it which is a very dangerous thing in a country so throughly corrupt at all levels as is Thailand. I also thing the Thai language is generally somewhat vague and unspecific and I would imagine this tendency follows through in the way the laws are written to some extent at least. That leaves a lot of wiggle room.

OK, now I'm confused. Apparently there is a lack of legal precedent in the Thai Legal System? Yet the article states that the 2nd case was dismissed due to the legal precedent set by the High Court in the 1st case as

EC Secretary General Sutiphon said

" Suthiphon said the misstep happened because public prosecutors and the EC legal team had jointly agreed that the party registrar had finalised his decision for prosecutionof the dissolution case, but they overlooked the requirement to draw a conclusion on the case before petitioning the high court.

The high court set a precedent that the party registrar must rule on the cause of guiltbefore seeking to disband a political party, he said."

So is there legal precedent or not?

[TAWP]

From my understanding is that the decisions by the High Court is guiding, but there is no Case Law, i.e. decisions in lower courts have no bearing on other cases. I.e. a court does not have to follow its own decision in exactly the same [next] case with other offenders.

In that aspect the system is more like my home-country and less like the US. (Even if decisions in 'Supreme Court' of my home country is more than just guiding, but below binding.)

[ChiangMaiFun]

Here we go again - no one cares about the rights or wrongs - just the 'technicality' - and who, exactly, 'forgot'? sounds like a conspiracy theorists dream - and the Dems walk away again because of 'something'. Don't all these people realise that you can fools some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time? what a farce

[rubl]

Here we go again - no one cares about the rights or wrongs - just the 'technicality' - and who, exactly, 'forgot'? sounds like a conspiracy theorists dream - and the Dems walk away again because of 'something'. Don't all these people realise that you can fools some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time? what a farce

Read some of the previous posts on how the EC declared a few times 'we have no case' and were pressured, even threatened to start a case.

Some people don't read or listen and want to be fooled it seems

[ChiangMaiFun]

Here we go again - no one cares about the rights or wrongs - just the 'technicality' - and who, exactly, 'forgot'? sounds like a conspiracy theorists dream - and the Dems walk away again because of 'something'. Don't all these people realise that you can fools some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time? what a farce

Read some of the previous posts on how the EC declared a few times 'we have no case' and were pressured, even threatened to start a case.

Some people don't read or listen and want to be fooled it seems

rubbish - the EC would never have taken the case forward had it not believed in a successful outcome - take your blinkers off! and so to get out of it? a technicality! are you honestly saying you cannot see the obvious? those 'in power' are 'in power' get used to it

[TAWP]

rubbish - the EC would never have taken the case forward had it not believed in a successful outcome - take your blinkers off! and so to get out of it? a technicality! are you honestly saying you cannot see the obvious? those 'in power' are 'in power' get used to it

Actually, they didn't take the cases forward...until someone threatened to publish their home addresses for all red fans to visit...all in a good sense of right and wrong.

[ChiangMaiFun]

rubbish - the EC would never have taken the case forward had it not believed in a successful outcome - take your blinkers off! and so to get out of it? a technicality! are you honestly saying you cannot see the obvious? those 'in power' are 'in power' get used to it

Actually, they didn't take the cases forward...until someone threatened to publish their home addresses for all red fans to visit...all in a good sense of right and wrong.

maybe because there WAS a case to answer! but we will never know will we? because it 'probably' has been buried and they hope no one will notice - its all topsy turvy - like the video thing - who cares about if bad was done - we care about the 'technicality' of someone breaking the law by filming! its all manipulated and buried - the powerful looking after the powerful

[rubl]

rubbish - the EC would never have taken the case forward had it not believed in a successful outcome - take your blinkers off! and so to get out of it? a technicality! are you honestly saying you cannot see the obvious? those 'in power' are 'in power' get used to it

Actually, they didn't take the cases forward...until someone threatened to publish their home addresses for all red fans to visit...all in a good sense of right and wrong.

maybe because there WAS a case to answer! but we will never know will we? because it 'probably' has been buried and they hope no one will notice - its all topsy turvy - like the video thing - who cares about if bad was done - we care about the 'technicality' of someone breaking the law by filming! its all manipulated and buried - the powerful looking after the powerful

Maybe there was? Probably buried? Government conspiracy?

You mean to say nothing new under the sun. If one did it, why not others also? Birds of the same feather? People can't be fooled all the time, someone posted here. Just suggesting seems enough.

So read this:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/18/1097951625856.html?from=storylhs

and

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/18/1097951633168.html?from=storylhs

Nothing like that has been seen in the two Dem's cases. Compared with some they have much to learn

[ChiangMaiFun]

rubbish - the EC would never have taken the case forward had it not believed in a successful outcome - take your blinkers off! and so to get out of it? a technicality! are you honestly saying you cannot see the obvious? those 'in power' are 'in power' get used to it

Actually, they didn't take the cases forward...until someone threatened to publish their home addresses for all red fans to visit...all in a good sense of right and wrong.

maybe because there WAS a case to answer! but we will never know will we? because it 'probably' has been buried and they hope no one will notice - its all topsy turvy - like the video thing - who cares about if bad was done - we care about the 'technicality' of someone breaking the law by filming! its all manipulated and buried - the powerful looking after the powerful

Maybe there was? Probably buried? Government conspiracy?

You mean to say nothing new under the sun. If one did it, why not others also? Birds of the same feather? People can't be fooled all the time, someone posted here. Just suggesting seems enough.

So read this:

http://www.theage.co...l?from=storylhs

and

http://www.smh.com.a...l?from=storylhs

Nothing like that has been seen in the two Dem's cases. Compared with some they have much to learn

two wrongs don't make a right

[rubl]

(quote name='ChiangMaiFun' timestamp='1292056599' post='4080661')

rubbish - the EC would never have taken the case forward had it not believed in a successful outcome - take your blinkers off! and so to get out of it? a technicality! are you honestly saying you cannot see the obvious? those 'in power' are 'in power' get used to it

(/quote)

Actually, they didn't take the cases forward...until someone threatened to publish their home addresses for all red fans to visit...all in a good sense of right and wrong.

maybe because there WAS a case to answer! but we will never know will we? because it 'probably' has been buried and they hope no one will notice - its all topsy turvy - like the video thing - who cares about if bad was done - we care about the 'technicality' of someone breaking the law by filming! its all manipulated and buried - the powerful looking after the powerful

Maybe there was? Probably buried? Government conspiracy?

You mean to say nothing new under the sun. If one did it, why not others also? Birds of the same feather? People can't be fooled all the time, someone posted here. Just suggesting seems enough.

So read this:

http://www.theage.co...l?from=storylhs

and

http://www.smh.com.a...l?from=storylhs

Nothing like that has been seen in the two Dem's cases. Compared with some they have much to learn

two wrongs don't make a right

True, tell k. Thaksin

[ChiangMaiFun]

two wrongs don't make a right

True, tell k. Thaksin

if I knew the gentleman I would - but it doesn't mean to say because of past wrongdoing we should continue :jap:

[jdinasia]

rubbish - the EC would never have taken the case forward had it not believed in a successful outcome - take your blinkers off! and so to get out of it? a technicality! are you honestly saying you cannot see the obvious? those 'in power' are 'in power' get used to it

Actually, you are way off base here.

The party registrar had previously stated that the PTI-Polene case was not clear.

The reds rioted. The reds threatened. The reds put EC member's home addresses in print. All to intimidate. Finally the EC (not the party registrar) put the case forward ---- not in 2005 ---- not in 2006 ---- not in 2007 ---- or 2008 -----

Get the picture?

The technicality in the "illegal donation" case against the Dems isn't really a technicality at all. It is simply that it was ruled as a non-starter by the person responsible for putting the case forward a LONG time ago and that the reds intimidated the EC into it.

This is similar to any case that the Attny Gen looks at, sees that there isn't enough evidence to make a prima facie case and drops. Then some lower level district attny decides to pick up even though it is not in his area of jurisdiction.

There was no "smoking gun" here. There was an accusation with no paper trail.

[animatic]

Here we go again - no one cares about the rights or wrongs - just the 'technicality' - and who, exactly, 'forgot'? sounds like a conspiracy theorists dream - and the Dems walk away again because of 'something'. Don't all these people realise that you can fools some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time? what a farce

Read some of the previous posts on how the EC declared a few times 'we have no case' and were pressured, even threatened to start a case.

Some people don't read or listen and want to be fooled it seems

rubbish - the EC would never have taken the case forward had it not believed in a successful outcome - take your blinkers off! and so to get out of it? a technicality! are you honestly saying you cannot see the obvious? those 'in power' are 'in power' get used to it

[asiawatcher]

Was the failure premeditated or incompetence?

Whatever the case neither the judiciary or the Dems came out smelling of roses.

Who cares - case closed!

[jdinasia]

Was the failure premeditated or incompetence?

Whatever the case neither the judiciary or the Dems came out smelling of roses.

Who cares - case closed!

While in both cases I would have preferred to see an actual verdict. I agree with asiawatcher on this,

Would the reds have been happier if the PTI-Polene case had been dismissed on the grounds of failure to make a prima facie case? (insufficient evidence to proceed) I don't think so.

Would the reds have been happier had the courts said that the signage case didn't affect the outcome of the elections and thus was a moot point? Again, I don't think so.

Rule of law is vital for a democracy to be functional. Rule of law has been applied.

case closed.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Was the failure premeditated or incompetence?

Whatever the case neither the judiciary or the Dems came out smelling of roses.

Who cares - case closed!

While in both cases I would have preferred to see an actual verdict. I agree with asiawatcher on this,

Would the reds have been happier if the PTI-Polene case had been dismissed on the grounds of failure to make a prima facie case? (insufficient evidence to proceed) I don't think so.

Would the reds have been happier had the courts said that the signage case didn't affect the outcome of the elections and thus was a moot point? Again, I don't think so.

Rule of law is vital for a democracy to be functional. Rule of law has been applied.

case closed.

yes vital - so let's see it developed here - Rule of Law is also applied in Zimbabwe - depends how the law has been developed can't just say 'rule of law' if the law is immature.

[jdinasia]

Whatever the case neither the judiciary or the Dems came out smelling of roses.

Who cares - case closed!

While in both cases I would have preferred to see an actual verdict. I agree with asiawatcher on this,

Would the reds have been happier if the PTI-Polene case had been dismissed on the grounds of failure to make a prima facie case? (insufficient evidence to proceed) I don't think so.

Would the reds have been happier had the courts said that the signage case didn't affect the outcome of the elections and thus was a moot point? Again, I don't think so.

Rule of law is vital for a democracy to be functional. Rule of law has been applied.

case closed.

yes vital - so let's see it developed here - Rule of Law is also applied in Zimbabwe - depends how the law has been developed can't just say 'rule of law' if the law is immature.

Perhaps you should read up on "rule of law" and the pillars of democracy!

[TAWP]

I think what ChiangMaiFun is trying to say is "unless something goes as I want, there is no rule of law".

No-matter if that means opposing both guilty verdicts and non-guilty verdicts...all depending on who the charged person is.

[animatic]

quote 'Pib '1292031513'

Was the failure premeditated or incompetence?

Whatever the case neither the judiciary or the Dems came out smelling of roses.

Who cares - case closed!

While in both cases I would have preferred to see an actual verdict. I agree with asiawatcher on this,

Would the reds have been happier if the PTI-Polene case had been dismissed on the grounds of failure to make a prima facie case? (insufficient evidence to proceed) I don't think so.

Would the reds have been happier had the courts said that the signage case didn't affect the outcome of the elections and thus was a moot point? Again, I don't think so.

Rule of law is vital for a democracy to be functional. Rule of law has been applied.

case closed.

yes vital - so let's see it developed here - Rule of Law is also applied in Zimbabwe - depends how the law has been developed can't just say 'rule of law' if the law is immature.

You can say that if you have a reasonable and mature law, but those who try to use it wrongfully are painfully immature.

This reflects this case. Those who's job was to interpret the rules, decided that there was insufficient evidense to further the case.

But rather than go out and FIND enough evidence, an immature political actor,

decided to force action from those who decided there was not sufficient prima facia evidense to put forward a case, through intimidation and abuse.

For their immaturely they got a proper comeuppance, the case was thrown out for being prematurely forwarded. If anyone is to blame it is Arissaman and his crew. We have seen action taken against parties and MPs and ministers, but in all cases, they took their time and got convictions. Arissaman can't think that far ahead of his actions.

Edited December 11, 2010 by animatic

[ChiangMaiFun]

I think what ChiangMaiFun is trying to say is "unless something goes as I want, there is no rule of law".

No-matter if that means opposing both guilty verdicts and non-guilty verdicts...all depending on who the charged person is.

so you must believe that Thailand has a mature and developed system of law? naive at best - brainwashed at worse

[TAWP]

I think what ChiangMaiFun is trying to say is "unless something goes as I want, there is no rule of law".

No-matter if that means opposing both guilty verdicts and non-guilty verdicts...all depending on who the charged person is.

so you must believe that Thailand has a mature and developed system of law? naive at best - brainwashed at worse

Nice strawman, I have never claimed it has. I am merely pointing out your bias and double-standard.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Who cares - case closed!

While in both cases I would have preferred to see an actual verdict. I agree with asiawatcher on this,

Would the reds have been happier if the PTI-Polene case had been dismissed on the grounds of failure to make a prima facie case? (insufficient evidence to proceed) I don't think so.

Would the reds have been happier had the courts said that the signage case didn't affect the outcome of the elections and thus was a moot point? Again, I don't think so.

Rule of law is vital for a democracy to be functional. Rule of law has been applied.

case closed.

yes vital - so let's see it developed here - Rule of Law is also applied in Zimbabwe - depends how the law has been developed can't just say 'rule of law' if the law is immature.

You can say that if you have a reasonable and mature law, but those who try to use it wrongfully are painfully immature.

This reflects this case. Those who's job was to interpret the rules, decided that there was insufficient evidense to further the case.

But rather than go out and FIND enough evidence, an immature political actor,

decided to force action from those who decided there was not sufficient prima facia evidense to put forward a case, through intimidation and abuse.

For their immaturely they got a proper comeuppance, the case was thrown out for being prematurely forwarded. If anyone is to blame it is Arissaman and his crew. We have seen action taken against parties and MPs and ministers, but in all cases, they took their time and got convictions. Arissaman can't think that far ahead of his actions.

'Those who's job was' well said indeed... I'll say no more - there seems to be many on this board who put on their 'rose coloured' specs when they arrived and never took them off - I try to take a balanced view and have many reservations about the development of law here - including lack of precedance etc. but I expect to be attacked by the 'everything here is perfect' brigade - I'm used to it

[jdinasia]

I think what ChiangMaiFun is trying to say is "unless something goes as I want, there is no rule of law".

No-matter if that means opposing both guilty verdicts and non-guilty verdicts...all depending on who the charged person is.

I just think he is missing the clue on what "rule of law" means and how it is an essential pillar of democracy. Law here is fully developed. Sadly, sometimes it may not be as impartial as one would want (looking back to 2001) but it is developed. Those that think that rule of law is less important tend to think that "innocent until PROVEN guilty" is less important.

I again suggest that CMF does a bit of reading about "rule of law" and the pillars of democracy. One of the requirements of rule of law is that prosecutions be technically correct. Another is that prosecutions not be made under duress/threat.

[Siam Simon]

I think what ChiangMaiFun is trying to say is "unless something goes as I want, there is no rule of law".

No-matter if that means opposing both guilty verdicts and non-guilty verdicts...all depending on who the charged person is.

I just think he is missing the clue on what "rule of law" means and how it is an essential pillar of democracy. Law here is fully developed. Sadly, sometimes it may not be as impartial as one would want (looking back to 2001) but it is developed. Those that think that rule of law is less important tend to think that "innocent until PROVEN guilty" is less important.

I again suggest that CMF does a bit of reading about "rule of law" and the pillars of democracy. One of the requirements of rule of law is that prosecutions be technically correct. Another is that prosecutions not be made under duress/threat.

"Law here is fully developed. Sadly, sometimes it may not be as impartial as one would want (looking back to 2001)"

My god, JD, that statement is impugning the Thai judiciary. Not only is that against TV Forum rules, it's against Thai Law!