Thai govt set to appeal Civil Court ruling

[webfact]

Govt set to appeal Civil Court ruling
Anapat Deechuay,
Hataikarn Treesuwan
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Caretaker government will "as soon as possible" appeal Wednesday's Civil Court ruling that prohibits it from using the emergency decree to revoke people's constitutional right to assemble peacefully.

Meanwhile, People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) leader Thaworn Senneam, who is also a legal expert, said PDRC would file a petition with the Criminal Court seeking the revocation of arrest warrants against 19 PDRC leaders.

Deputy Prime Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul said yesterday that the government's Centre for Maintaining Peace and Order (CMPO) would appeal the ruling, which he said limited the centre's powers and the implementation of the emergency decree.

"The CMPO is determined to do its duty," said Surapong, who is CMPO's chief adviser.

Though the Civil Court turned down Thaworn's request for the state of emergency to be revoked, it did issue an order prohibiting the authorities from limiting the protesters' rights on nine points, including a ban on public gathering and use of force against protesters.

Labour Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung, who is in charge of the CMPO, yesterday wrote to the Civil Court asking for further explanation of the ruling. He posed seven questions about what the CMPO can and cannot do in particular situations.

For instance, he asked if armed protesters who set up "bunkers" around Government House could be arrested and what could be done with the protesters' seizure of the Interior Ministry and their alleged theft of M16 assault rifles stored there.

He also asked if the closure of a road by protesters could be deemed peaceful and what action the authorities could take if they tried to seize the Energy Ministry again. The ministry complex is now in the CMPO's control after a recent police crackdown.

Chalerm also asked what could be done in relation to the protesters' seizure of different state agencies, companies and even the CMPO headquarters.

Thaworn said PDRC will also file criminal cases against caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Chalerm, national police chief Pol General Adul Saengsingkaew and Department of Special Investigation chief Tarit Pengdith for their roles in the crackdown on protesters, which it claims led to many deaths.

"We are discussing the issue with the relatives of two victims who say the government went too far and want us to help file a criminal complaint," he said.

Opposition Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva also said yesterday that the arrest warrants against PDRC leaders should be revoked because, according to the Civil Court ruling, the leaders' actions could not be deemed offences.

Abhisit said specific laws, such as the electoral law or trespassing, should be applied against protesters on a case-by-case basis.

He also called on the CMPO not to distort facts about its recent operations to reclaim protest sites, saying that its claim of not using any weapons against protesters was untrue. He pointed out that such inaccurate information could affect the CMPO's credibility.


-- The Nation 2014-02-21

[GeorgeO]

I don't see the point of appealing the decision. This caretaker government is at the very end of its tenure, and from what I can see, will have fallen before the case could even be heard.

Why else are Cabinet Ministers now planning trips overseas to "enlighten" the rest of the civilised world....?? They are 'doing a Thaksin', like rats leaving a sinking ship...!!

[NongKhaiKid]

Is appealing the decision a new tactic ?

Usually they just ignore a ruling they don't like or is that only reserved for the Constitutional Court ?

[Prbkk]

Yes, they must appeal. The Thai legal system is already viewed as something of a joke. But it's the same posters applauding this decision who endlessly bemoan the anti foreign bias of thai courts.

[fleeing]

The Caretaker government will "as soon as possible" appeal Wednesday's Civil Court ruling that prohibits it from using the emergency decree to revoke people's constitutional right to assemble peacefully.

When is a democracy not a democracy?

When your democratic rights are withheld because they are being used against the government.

[fab4]

Abhisit claiming that the CMPO lied about using weapons!

Oh dear, oh dear oh dear! The hypocrisy and arrogance of this failed politician is outstanding.

Mr " we did not use live ammunition " abhisit.

[focus27]

Yes, they must appeal. The Thai legal system is already viewed as something of a joke. But it's the same posters applauding this decision who endlessly bemoan the anti foreign bias of thai courts.

I also think an appeal will slow down the threatened Criminal Court case as the judges could not then base their decision upon a Civil Court judgment that is under appeal. I also suspect this will also speed up the appeal.

On the whole, I'm surprised at how incompetent the gov has been in handling this whole situation from day one. They have always been on the back foot and have nobody with a presence to stand in front of cameras and take a stand against the Suthepistas. Not because I thought the PTP were awash with talent, but because they obviously have foreign help that could have assisted their PR.

[haroldc]

Yes, they must appeal. The Thai legal system is already viewed as something of a joke. But it's the same posters applauding this decision who endlessly bemoan the anti foreign bias of thai courts.

Anti-foreign bias? In the past 25 years, I have been involved in 8 court cases - in the civil, criminal, appeals, labor, and intellectual property courts - in the various roles of plaintiff, defendant, and witness. I have never seen any evidence of anti-foreigner bias whatsoever. On the contrary, I have been impressed by each court's competence, fairness, and adherence to the principles of justice.

[carbine1125]

Yes, they must appeal. The Thai legal system is already viewed as something of a joke. But it's the same posters applauding this decision who endlessly bemoan the anti foreign bias of thai courts.

Anti-foreign bias? In the past 25 years, I have been involved in 8 court cases - in the civil, criminal, appeals, labor, and intellectual property courts - in the various roles of plaintiff, defendant, and witness. I have never seen any evidence of anti-foreigner bias whatsoever. On the contrary, I have been impressed by each court's competence, fairness, and adherence to the principles of justice.

Ah leave him alone, he wake up soon with his face in the cornflakes.

[les Dennis]

The poo will hit the fan good and proper if theres a shooting at the airport.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[aussieinthailand]

Yes, they must appeal. The Thai legal system is already viewed as something of a joke. But it's the same posters applauding this decision who endlessly bemoan the anti foreign bias of thai courts.

Anti-foreign bias? In the past 25 years, I have been involved in 8 court cases - in the civil, criminal, appeals, labor, and intellectual property courts - in the various roles of plaintiff, defendant, and witness. I have never seen any evidence of anti-foreigner bias whatsoever. On the contrary, I have been impressed by each court's competence, fairness, and adherence to the principles of justice.

How can the CC say that protesters are non violent and not using weapon's???

Just what dose a person according to the CC have to do to be considered to be using NON democratic means to take government? or to overthrow the government? Just what is Suthep doing then if not that???

A judicial coup is what is being said by many and thinks that the courts are anything but completely impartial?

YU'P, ANTI-FOREIGN BIAS,,, a friend of mine with a western last name was fined double the amount than Thai people were by the same court same judge for a much lesser offence, explain that if it's not bias???

[geriatrickid]

The Thai government is obliged to appeal the ruling. There is a legitimate legal argument that the judgement was flawed and interferes with the legally obligated duties and obligations of the government. The judgement sets a precedent that could cause serious problems for future governments.

The decision will be argued on its legal merits and it will take time, more time than the civil court gave what was a complex legal issue.

[SICHONSTEVE]

Yes, they must appeal. The Thai legal system is already viewed as something of a joke. But it's the same posters applauding this decision who endlessly bemoan the anti foreign bias of thai courts.

I have never bemoaned the anti foreign bias of Thai courts.

They supply the necessary policing of government (this one in particular) and are the true bastions of democracy!!

[rickirs]

"PDRC will also file criminal cases against caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Chalerm, national police chief Pol General Adul Saengsingkaew and Department of Special Investigation chief Tarit Pengdith for their roles in the crackdown on protesters..."

Are there any legal experts out there who can explain how a citizen can file a criminal case against anyone, much less against government officials?

Normally the charge and prosecution of citizens, whether against government leaders, employees or civilians, is vested with elected authorities (delegated through a chain of command to subordinates) and not with the public at large. Such system provides transparency and protection of accused rights in the application of due process of law without any conflict of interest. If it's true that anyone in Thailand is allowed to file criminal cases against anyone else, Thailand's judicial system lacks transparency, creditability, and semblance to a democratic due process of law.

[Why ask]

The Thai government is obliged to appeal the ruling. There is a legitimate legal argument that the judgement was flawed and interferes with the legally obligated duties and obligations of the government. The judgement sets a precedent that could cause serious problems for future governments.

The decision will be argued on its legal merits and it will take time, more time than the civil court gave what was a complex legal issue.

Why are you trying to pretend you are a lawyer, or solicitor, when your wording makes it perfectly clear that you are not?

There is no precedence set, and as you are fully aware, even if one had been then anti-precedences are equally implemented inThailand, when suited to new/old parties, at will.

The CARETAKER government's obligations, or duties, are limited as a result of its own dissolution, and nothing more nor less. Thus, please point out the flaws you observe.

[geriatrickid]

The Thai government is obliged to appeal the ruling. There is a legitimate legal argument that the judgement was flawed and interferes with the legally obligated duties and obligations of the government. The judgement sets a precedent that could cause serious problems for future governments.

The decision will be argued on its legal merits and it will take time, more time than the civil court gave what was a complex legal issue.

Why are you trying to pretend you are a lawyer, or solicitor, when your wording makes it perfectly clear that you are not?

There is no precedence set, and as you are fully aware, even if one had been then anti-precedences are equally implemented inThailand, when suited to new/old parties, at will.

The CARETAKER government's obligations, or duties, are limited as a result of its own dissolution, and nothing more nor less. Thus, please point out the flaws you observe.

I have never claimed to be a member of the Thai bar, nor have I offered a legal opinion.

However, the fact is that the ruling is the first of its kind in Thailand. That is why it is a precedent. Can you provide an example since the last constitution was enacted, where a civil court has rendered a similar judgement? It basically says that the government cannot take the actions necessary to uphold the law that it has both a duty and obligation to maintain. The government is blocked from taking the appropriate measures needed to maintain civil order.

On one side is the military which has refused to assist the government, and on the other is a lower court which has acted to "legislate" from the bench. The issues I raised have been discussed by multiple constitutional law experts. Nothing new. The fact that there is a caretaker government does not mean that the existing laws in respect to maintaining civil order no longer exist or that the government is precluded from enforcing those laws. Caretaker status only affects the government in respect to enacting new spending. Do you understand the issue now?

[haroldc]

The Thai government is obliged to appeal the ruling. There is a legitimate legal argument that the judgement was flawed and interferes with the legally obligated duties and obligations of the government. The judgement sets a precedent that could cause serious problems for future governments.

The decision will be argued on its legal merits and it will take time, more time than the civil court gave what was a complex legal issue.

FYI, Thai jurisprudence does not recognize the common law principle of binding judicial precedent.

[Why ask]

The Thai government is obliged to appeal the ruling. There is a legitimate legal argument that the judgement was flawed and interferes with the legally obligated duties and obligations of the government. The judgement sets a precedent that could cause serious problems for future governments.

The decision will be argued on its legal merits and it will take time, more time than the civil court gave what was a complex legal issue.

Why are you trying to pretend you are a lawyer, or solicitor, when your wording makes it perfectly clear that you are not?

There is no precedence set, and as you are fully aware, even if one had been then anti-precedences are equally implemented inThailand, when suited to new/old parties, at will.

The CARETAKER government's obligations, or duties, are limited as a result of its own dissolution, and nothing more nor less. Thus, please point out the flaws you observe.

I have never claimed to be a member of the Thai bar, nor have I offered a legal opinion.

However, the fact is that the ruling is the first of its kind in Thailand. That is why it is a precedent. Can you provide an example since the last constitution was enacted, where a civil court has rendered a similar judgement? It basically says that the government cannot take the actions necessary to uphold the law that it has both a duty and obligation to maintain. The government is blocked from taking the appropriate measures needed to maintain civil order.

On one side is the military which has refused to assist the government, and on the other is a lower court which has acted to "legislate" from the bench. The issues I raised have been discussed by multiple constitutional law experts. Nothing new. The fact that there is a caretaker government does not mean that the existing laws in respect to maintaining civil order no longer exist or that the government is precluded from enforcing those laws. Caretaker status only affects the government in respect to enacting new spending. Do you understand the issue now?

Indeed it does not say that the government CANNOT take action to uphold laws, not does it inappropriate any action.

What is does clearly state, however, is that the government is limited to how it believes it should react. The reason for that is because, you would never guess who, is asking how far can he go. That itself warrants legal ruling, because the court questions his legal/illegal intentions, and cannot condone his intentions when the public may become at risk. That does not imply precedence, as that itself is in the constitution as it currently stands. Dealing with civil order/disorder, and going beserk crazy into crowds of mostly innocent protestors needs a line drawn, and that is exactly what the court did. If you believe appropriate measures are in the order of what Chalerm attempted to achieve a few days ago, then I am sorry - but that is legally unconstitutional, and way beyond current law/s. The crowd/s were neither uncivil nor disorderly, until the order to attempt to disperse violently was initiated.

The government is permitted, in contrast to what you alledge, in that it can enforce laws. However, yet again, how it enforces those laws now precludes wanton murder by you know who - out of his own desperations and fears. Caretaker government status does not permit Chalerm to offer wanton war, as the court clearly made it clear. Now do you understand?

[siampolee]

It is my opinion that the court is actually trying to disarm and neutralize that loose cannon and dangerously unstable piece of human (?) ordinance Chalerm.

Chalerm, who if he had his way would indeed ignite the explosive contents of the barrel of discontent that would result in a very large amount of bloodshed.

[geriatrickid]

The Thai government is obliged to appeal the ruling. There is a legitimate legal argument that the judgement was flawed and interferes with the legally obligated duties and obligations of the government. The judgement sets a precedent that could cause serious problems for future governments.

The decision will be argued on its legal merits and it will take time, more time than the civil court gave what was a complex legal issue.

FYI, Thai jurisprudence does not recognize the common law principle of binding judicial precedent.

In this case, it sets a precedent, because it is the first time that a lower Thai court has made such a broad and sweeping decision. The courts have previously refrained from acting in such an invasive manner..

[Patpending]

hilarious as it is, the Courts have opened themselves up to invasion.

How long before all the court buildings are occupied if the reds have to come out.

Be very hard for them to get the police and army to clear them out. Meanwhile the "death of Justice" goes unreported in the suthep press. Getting a good airing everywhere else. Love to see them old judges whine about shutdown of courts next week.

[ramrod711]

Labour Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung, who is in charge of the CMPO, yesterday wrote to the Civil Court asking for further explanation of the ruling. He posed seven questions about what the CMPO can and cannot do in particular situations.

Can I send police into harms way while i sit at the bar with a nice beverage and tell everyone how large my cojones are? Can police fire on protesters or do we have to beat them with batons. Do we have to do this in a legal way, or can we just make these people disappear like we did in the good old exjudicial drug dealer killings? Enquiring minds need to know

[Imale]

While the Thai judicial process does not recognize precedent verdicts as binding, the Civil Court decision in this case was extraordinary. Their argument was that the Emergency Decree was a valid law but that it could not be used to restrict the freedom of peaceful assembly of the anti-government protesters (and to decide if their assembly was peaceful, the Civil Court looked not at the facts, but at a previous Constitutional Court decision, which is highly questionable).

In 2010, the Abhisit govt invoked the same Emergency Decree and immediately used it to block the Prachatai online newspaper website, among others. Prachatai filed a suit in the Civil Court claiming that this was a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of expression, noting that the CRES has not cited any examples of Prachatai that were in violation of any law. The court asked Prachatai to assemble its witnesses, which it did, but within 5 hours, without hearing the witnesses, the court dismissed the case, arguing that freedom of expression can constitutionally be restricted by law (such the laws on defamation or lese majeste) and the Emergency Decree was such a law.

In other words, 4 years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, the court accepted that the Emergency Decree trumped any constitutional rights merely on the say-so of the govt of the day. The ruling this week says the opposite, that constitutional rights cannot be curtailed by the whatever the govt decides to use the Emergency Decree for.

Song mathrathan indeed.

[GeorgeO]

The Thai government is obliged to appeal the ruling. There is a legitimate legal argument that the judgement was flawed and interferes with the legally obligated duties and obligations of the government. The judgement sets a precedent that could cause serious problems for future governments.

The decision will be argued on its legal merits and it will take time, more time than the civil court gave what was a complex legal issue.

FYI, Thai jurisprudence does not recognize the common law principle of binding judicial precedent.

In this case, it sets a precedent, because it is the first time that a lower Thai court has made such a broad and sweeping decision. The courts have previously refrained from acting in such an invasive manner..

Just to re-emphasise what you have already been told, but chose to ignore, this is not a legal system the likes of which you will find in the UK; the Thai legal system does not operate on the basis of legal precedents.

So, whatever you think of any decision that has been made here, it DOES NOT set a legal precedent...!!

[geriatrickid]

The Thai government is obliged to appeal the ruling. There is a legitimate legal argument that the judgement was flawed and interferes with the legally obligated duties and obligations of the government. The judgement sets a precedent that could cause serious problems for future governments.

The decision will be argued on its legal merits and it will take time, more time than the civil court gave what was a complex legal issue.

FYI, Thai jurisprudence does not recognize the common law principle of binding judicial precedent.

In this case, it sets a precedent, because it is the first time that a lower Thai court has made such a broad and sweeping decision. The courts have previously refrained from acting in such an invasive manner..

Just to re-emphasise what you have already been told, but chose to ignore, this is not a legal system the likes of which you will find in the UK; the Thai legal system does not operate on the basis of legal precedents.

So, whatever you think of any decision that has been made here, it DOES NOT set a legal precedent...!!

And as you have chosen to ignore it does set a precedent in respect to constitutionally defined role of the judiciary. The court is intruding in the legislative process. The decision is not a precedent in respect to the civil law, rather it is a precedent in respect to the process and the authority of the lower court.. The court is legislating from the bench and crossing the dividing line between the judicial system and the government. Allowing this broadening of the judicial role, sets a precedent because it means that in future, the judiciary can intervene more easily. This would handcuff future governments, no matter which political party.

And btw, in respect to the issue of legal precedent as used in criminal and civil cases, while courts are not bound by previous decisions , the decisions in respect to constitutional and tax and IP issues are used as a base point. In fact, tax cases decided in the administrative courts rely heavily on previous decisions, so don't deliver an absolute statement that judicial precedence has no place in Thailand. When the courts delivered their decision on the former government they used previous decisions as a guide and cited those cases. You are missing the fundamental issue that this is a constitutional dispute over the authority of a government that was adjudicated by a lower civil court.