NACC asks law council to take action against PM’s lawyer

BANGKOK: -- The National Anti-Corruptiion Commission has notified the Law Council of Thailand to take action against a lawyer of caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra for alleged misconduct.

NACC secretary-general Sansern Poljiak said today that the lawyer, Mr Bancha Parameesanaporn, told the media threatening to charge the NACC of malfeasance in office in accordance with Article 157 of the Criminal Code in an apparent retaliation against the NACC for rejecting the lawyer’s demand that seven more witnesses be allowed to testify in defence of the prime minister in an alleged corruption case pertaining to the rice pledging scheme.

Sansern said that Mr Bancha’s conduct amounts to an intimidation of the NACC despite the fact that the commission’s probe into the case is not yet completed.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/nacc-asks-law-council-take-action-pms-lawyer/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nacc-asks-law-council-take-action-pms-lawyer

-- Thai PBS 2014-05-01

This really deserves a bravo. Yingluck's lawyers - not to mention Yingluck herself, Chalerm, Surapong, CAPO, and the UDD - have more than crossed the line into contempt of court - in some cases many times over. It's about time the law put its foot down, and it has. Bullies only succeed when they intimidate. When they don't - they fail.

This really deserves a bravo. Yingluck's lawyers - not to mention Yingluck herself, Chalerm, Surapong, CAPO, and the UDD - have more than crossed the line into contempt of court - in some cases many times over. It's about time the law put its foot down, and it has. Bullies only succeed when they intimidate. When they don't - they fail.

I AGREE 1 Million %

More political handbags.

The NACC sees it as a retaliation, but what the lawyer stated was acceptable. Keep in mind that legal counsel is there to advocate on behalf of his client. He is to use the legal means necessary to advance his client's interests. In this case, the lawyer stated that he would bring a complaint necause the NACC refused to allow the the counsel to call witnesses.. It was his right and his obligation. to do his utmost on behalf of the client. It is the NACC that is attempting to intimidate and bully. It is the NACC that committed a wrong when it denied the accused the right to call additional witnesses in a serious case.

trying to defend the lawyer is really clutching at straws. Thw witnesses he wanted to call had nothing to do with what the NACC were investigating, ie, they were witness characters only and as such had no information that was useful to the case just as the ones that were allowed had no useful information, they simply said what a great person yl was but offered no new evidence. This was simply a stalling shot and then to top it off the idiot lawyer tried to threaten the NACC themsleves, to be honest I wish they would lock the stupid bastard up as he is obviously not very good at what he does. The NACC have been extremely patient with all the ptp bullsh*t, its way past time they actually took these idiots to task for the crap they are trying to use. The desperation of yl and the ptp/reds in general is beyond a joke, maybe we will finally see them pay for all their corrupt dealings but I am sure all the reds in here will keep bitching about justice if it is not what the ptp claim it should be because they say so, pathetic individuals at best.

The NACC sees it as a retaliation, but what the lawyer stated was acceptable. Keep in mind that legal counsel is there to advocate on behalf of his client. He is to use the legal means necessary to advance his client's interests. In this case, the lawyer stated that he would bring a complaint necause the NACC refused to allow the the counsel to call witnesses.. It was his right and his obligation. to do his utmost on behalf of the client. It is the NACC that is attempting to intimidate and bully. It is the NACC that committed a wrong when it denied the accused the right to call additional witnesses in a serious case.

I am not sure about the legal status in Thailand but in the number of jurisdiction around the world that I am familiar with lawyers are considered to be officers of the court. Their conduct need to reflect this and in most cases it is the law councils role to discipline members who break codes of conduct. The request to the law council is a measured response and one where the conduct of the lawyer is assessed by the peer of lawyers - which is one of the two circumstances that I know of in Thai law where essential people have the benefit of a jury like judgement. The other is where a matter is referred to the Senate as will be the case if Yingluck conduct is found to be appropriate.

In regard to the additional witnesses the defence council in the written submission to the NACC should have provided documentary evidence to the NACC as well as outline the witnesses that they wanted to present and how those witness could have assisted the defence of Yingluck. Given that Yingluck has already been treated with a level of generosity (document provision in spite of not turning up and additional time to present her defence) it would appear reasonable that NACC should want to get one with her hearing. It also need to be remembered that Yingluck will have the opportunity to present additional evidence and witnesses at a hearing in the Senate should the NACC find against her.

Nothing more than setting the narrative to inflame the situation.

Step 1: Ask the NACC to listen to a list of irrelevant witnesses.

Step 2: The NACC tells them the irrelevant witnesses are irrelevant.

Step 3: "Look look!, double standards!, judicial coup!"

The NACC sees it as a retaliation, but what the lawyer stated was acceptable. Keep in mind that legal counsel is there to advocate on behalf of his client. He is to use the legal means necessary to advance his client's interests. In this case, the lawyer stated that he would bring a complaint necause the NACC refused to allow the the counsel to call witnesses.. It was his right and his obligation. to do his utmost on behalf of the client. It is the NACC that is attempting to intimidate and bully. It is the NACC that committed a wrong when it denied the accused the right to call additional witnesses in a serious case.

Its a threat intended to intimidate the NACC.

A complaint may be filed through the correct channels, but this is not a complaint - he is threatening the NACC and attempting to intimidate them into doing his bidding - or else! - and that amounts to misconduct - the NACC is correct to take the action that they have.

This really deserves a bravo. Yingluck's lawyers - not to mention Yingluck herself, Chalerm, Surapong, CAPO, and the UDD - have more than crossed the line into contempt of court - in some cases many times over. It's about time the law put its foot down, and it has. Bullies only succeed when they intimidate. When they don't - they fail.

Open defiance of such a corrupted institution is correct and noble.

The actions of the 2006 coup appointed judicial officials has rendered the courts null and void.

The US has stated such, both privately and publicly, which is why the judges have not been able to remove Yingluck from office.

All avenues for the yellows to usurp power are now firmly closed - justice and democracy has won the day.

Look at how pathetic it has all become.

Suthep and Abhisit in a public spat and the NACC reduced to filing frivolous charges against a no name lawyer.

Time to pack up the 5 or 6 remaining tents in Lumpini and go home.

Only embarrassment remains for the failed coup mongers.

In the not too distant future a fully elected senate will see the end of all these anti-democratic military/elite appointed officials and true independence will be returned to the courts.

Whats new. This is what Thaksin and his thugs and cronies have been doing since 2001 over the "Madam wanted to borrow our names" court case where the judges were intimidated and threatened to get a not guilty verdict for the criminal Thaksin. The sooner all the Thaksin spawn are legally dealt to the better for Thailand to be able to deal to the system issues it has instead of battling the abusers of the system. Well done NACC continuing to stand up to these criminals and their lackey's.

Getting more and more desperate!

The NACC sees it as a retaliation, but what the lawyer stated was acceptable. Keep in mind that legal counsel is there to advocate on behalf of his client. He is to use the legal means necessary to advance his client's interests. In this case, the lawyer stated that he would bring a complaint necause the NACC refused to allow the the counsel to call witnesses.. It was his right and his obligation. to do his utmost on behalf of the client. It is the NACC that is attempting to intimidate and bully. It is the NACC that committed a wrong when it denied the accused the right to call additional witnesses in a serious case.

He is trying this case outside a recognised form. He can defend his client to the hilt at a hearing and take other action if the finding goes against them but he, like so many others in PTP / reds, are laying it all out in advance with more than a hint to the NACC and courts to take notice.

This really deserves a bravo. Yingluck's lawyers - not to mention Yingluck herself, Chalerm, Surapong, CAPO, and the UDD - have more than crossed the line into contempt of court - in some cases many times over. It's about time the law put its foot down, and it has. Bullies only succeed when they intimidate. When they don't - they fail.

Open defiance of such a corrupted institution is correct and noble.

The actions of the 2006 coup appointed judicial officials has rendered the courts null and void.

The US has stated such, both privately and publicly, which is why the judges have not been able to remove Yingluck from office.

All avenues for the yellows to usurp power are now firmly closed - justice and democracy has won the day.

Look at how pathetic it has all become.

Suthep and Abhisit in a public spat and the NACC reduced to filing frivolous charges against a no name lawyer.

Time to pack up the 5 or 6 remaining tents in Lumpini and go home.

Only embarrassment remains for the failed coup mongers.

In the not too distant future a fully elected senate will see the end of all these anti-democratic military/elite appointed officials and true independence will be returned to the courts.

The actions of the 2006 coup appointed judicial officials has rendered the courts null and void.

The US has stated such, both privately and publicly,

Link to the US saying that the Thai courts are "null and void", Pipkins?

The NACC sees it as a retaliation, but what the lawyer stated was acceptable. Keep in mind that legal counsel is there to advocate on behalf of his client. He is to use the legal means necessary to advance his client's interests. In this case, the lawyer stated that he would bring a complaint necause the NACC refused to allow the the counsel to call witnesses.. It was his right and his obligation. to do his utmost on behalf of the client. It is the NACC that is attempting to intimidate and bully. It is the NACC that committed a wrong when it denied the accused the right to call additional witnesses in a serious case.

Do you recall that the lawyer first asked for 2 more witnesses to be heard, a few days later changed that to 4, and seemingly later upped it to 7.

There is a specific word for that kind of tactics, but I'm sure you are aware of it.

This really deserves a bravo. Yingluck's lawyers - not to mention Yingluck herself, Chalerm, Surapong, CAPO, and the UDD - have more than crossed the line into contempt of court - in some cases many times over. It's about time the law put its foot down, and it has. Bullies only succeed when they intimidate. When they don't - they fail.

Open defiance of such a corrupted institution is correct and noble.

The actions of the 2006 coup appointed judicial officials has rendered the courts null and void.

The US has stated such, both privately and publicly, which is why the judges have not been able to remove Yingluck from office.

All avenues for the yellows to usurp power are now firmly closed - justice and democracy has won the day.

Look at how pathetic it has all become.

Suthep and Abhisit in a public spat and the NACC reduced to filing frivolous charges against a no name lawyer.

Time to pack up the 5 or 6 remaining tents in Lumpini and go home.

Only embarrassment remains for the failed coup mongers.

In the not too distant future a fully elected senate will see the end of all these anti-democratic military/elite appointed officials and true independence will be returned to the courts.

Torkmada, Let's delve into each of your assumptions and arguments:

1) Basis for NACC being corrupt is that judges are appointed, not elected.

Based on this argument, the US Supreme Court is also corrupt as are most all justice branch institutions in functioning democracies all over the world. It is a fallacy to say that the NACC is corrupt based solely on the fact that it is appointed without providing specific examples of erroneous judgements/decisions passed down by the court. The converse is also a fallacy (that an ELECTED court would be less corrupt).

2) Charges against YL's lawyer are frivolous.

A lawyer is bound by professional conduct to respect the court and judges. In the US for example such an overt act of intimidation by a lawyer would also be referred to the BAR association and a fact finding hearing opened. If the fact supported the allegation of intimidation and lack of respect for the institution the lawyer may be disbarred.

There are rules of law regarding court procedures and YL has continuously flaunted those rules and the NACC, weary of being labeled as biased has gone above and beyond allowing YL not to show up in person, allowing the lawyer to copy charges despite personal appearance and the open and planned defiance of the court by YL goes way beyond any doubt as to to the culpability. No judicial branch in a functioning democracy in the world would let the open defiance go so far except in Thailand due to culture of "face".

3) Wanting reforms = wanting a coup

It is open knowledge that TRT/PTP linked murders of canvassers during previous elections have gone unpunished. When PM Abhisit visited Chiang Mai his car was openly attacked and attempted kidnapping occurred. When polled about whether candidates feel safe campaigning in the North, more than 80% of them said they feared for their lives.

Whatever side you agree with this culture of intimidation to maintain a superficial electoral majority is what needs to be changed. Wanting to have a true and real democracy, sans the murders and intimidation by any party is good for democracy. So if you are pro-democracy as you purport to be what argument can you possibly give in support of the current status quo?

In addition, how can you equate support of a true and fair democracy as "coup mongering"? It seems the BIAS which you allege lies firmly in your own eyes/views.

(Note I support neither side. I support true democracy).

4) As a side note it is a further open secret that farmers who are the electoral base of PTP which want to demonstrate against the government's incompetence in non-payment of money owed to them had their themselves and their families intimdated, MAFIA STYLE, and in no uncertain terms told to shut up or suffer the consequences.

Does your definition of democracy include (OR EVEN REQUIRE?) such mafia tactics to remain in control?

After hearing your rant, I would be interested to hear how you address these facts and arguments...

5) Last but not least, how about addressing the allegations based on facts and data?

PTP and its supporters practice a demented form of justice by just stating their propagandised opinion and then stating they have the majority opinion. Is it not reasonable for Thai tax payers to expect transparency in a scheme the scale and the impact of the rice scheme? It is not reasonable to expect legal inquiry when any request for transparency are countered with "national secret" excuses?

How about following the rules and procedures out of respect for the institution and putting together a solid argument based on the facts?

It does NOT require a huge stretch of imagination that such intimidation tactics are used by YL and team for 1) political effect; and 2) because they have no factual defense for her actions.

You can address grievances with the procedure through proper channels, but open intimidation of a constitutionally empowered institution, again, is not tolerated in any functional democracy.

The NACC sees it as a retaliation, but what the lawyer stated was acceptable. Keep in mind that legal counsel is there to advocate on behalf of his client. He is to use the legal means necessary to advance his client's interests. In this case, the lawyer stated that he would bring a complaint necause the NACC refused to allow the the counsel to call witnesses.. It was his right and his obligation. to do his utmost on behalf of the client. It is the NACC that is attempting to intimidate and bully. It is the NACC that committed a wrong when it denied the accused the right to call additional witnesses in a serious case.

Accusing the commission of bias - even before the outcome - is an act of pure intimidation.

If the NACC has evidence of a crime then it should act against the perpetrators.

The NACC has already explained that the witnesses were not involved in the the aspect of the case under review and therefore have nothing to add.

Shame on all of you who think that intimidating the NACC, EC, CC etc. should be condoned.

The NACC sees it as a retaliation, but what the lawyer stated was acceptable. Keep in mind that legal counsel is there to advocate on behalf of his client. He is to use the legal means necessary to advance his client's interests. In this case, the lawyer stated that he would bring a complaint necause the NACC refused to allow the the counsel to call witnesses.. It was his right and his obligation. to do his utmost on behalf of the client. It is the NACC that is attempting to intimidate and bully. It is the NACC that committed a wrong when it denied the accused the right to call additional witnesses in a serious case.

Accusing the commission of bias - even before the outcome - is an act of pure intimidation.

If the NACC has evidence of a crime then it should act against the perpetrators.

The NACC has already explained that the witnesses were not involved in the the aspect of the case under review and therefore have nothing to add.

Shame on all of you who think that intimidating the NACC, EC, CC etc. should be condoned.

No it is not.

Yes, the NACC should investigate if there is evidence of the crime. However, the NACC has an obligation to investigate in an unbiased and fair manner. The NACC is on a slippery slope when it acts as both accuser, investigator and adjudicator.

The NACC sees it as a retaliation, but what the lawyer stated was acceptable. Keep in mind that legal counsel is there to advocate on behalf of his client. He is to use the legal means necessary to advance his client's interests. In this case, the lawyer stated that he would bring a complaint necause the NACC refused to allow the the counsel to call witnesses.. It was his right and his obligation. to do his utmost on behalf of the client. It is the NACC that is attempting to intimidate and bully. It is the NACC that committed a wrong when it denied the accused the right to call additional witnesses in a serious case.

He is trying this case outside a recognised form. He can defend his client to the hilt at a hearing and take other action if the finding goes against them but he, like so many others in PTP / reds, are laying it all out in advance with more than a hint to the NACC and courts to take notice.

A lawyer is allowed to state his intentions. Keep in mind that this is a case that was characterized by leaks with details coming out in NACC friendly PR outlets such as Nation Media.

This really deserves a bravo. Yingluck's lawyers - not to mention Yingluck herself, Chalerm, Surapong, CAPO, and the UDD - have more than crossed the line into contempt of court - in some cases many times over. It's about time the law put its foot down, and it has. Bullies only succeed when they intimidate. When they don't - they fail.

Open defiance of such a corrupted institution is correct and noble.

The actions of the 2006 coup appointed judicial officials has rendered the courts null and void.

The US has stated such, both privately and publicly, which is why the judges have not been able to remove Yingluck from office.

All avenues for the yellows to usurp power are now firmly closed - justice and democracy has won the day.

Look at how pathetic it has all become.

Suthep and Abhisit in a public spat and the NACC reduced to filing frivolous charges against a no name lawyer.

Time to pack up the 5 or 6 remaining tents in Lumpini and go home.

Only embarrassment remains for the failed coup mongers.

In the not too distant future a fully elected senate will see the end of all these anti-democratic military/elite appointed officials and true independence will be returned to the courts.

In the not too distant future a fully elected senate will see the end of all these anti-democratic military/elite appointed officials

...and then you Red Shirt sycophants will have the Democratic Republic of Thailand that you have been fighting for...!! And I will have moved elsewhere...!!

The NACC sees it as a retaliation, but what the lawyer stated was acceptable. Keep in mind that legal counsel is there to advocate on behalf of his client. He is to use the legal means necessary to advance his client's interests. In this case, the lawyer stated that he would bring a complaint necause the NACC refused to allow the the counsel to call witnesses.. It was his right and his obligation. to do his utmost on behalf of the client. It is the NACC that is attempting to intimidate and bully. It is the NACC that committed a wrong when it denied the accused the right to call additional witnesses in a serious case.

Accusing the commission of bias - even before the outcome - is an act of pure intimidation.

If the NACC has evidence of a crime then it should act against the perpetrators.

The NACC has already explained that the witnesses were not involved in the the aspect of the case under review and therefore have nothing to add.

Shame on all of you who think that intimidating the NACC, EC, CC etc. should be condoned.

No it is not.

Yes, the NACC should investigate if there is evidence of the crime. However, the NACC has an obligation to investigate in an unbiased and fair manner. The NACC is on a slippery slope when it acts as both accuser, investigator and adjudicator.

GK, #2 answers most ---Yinglucks case---Stalling for time was the only reason. She wanted more time in the first year of office--AND DID NOTHING same now--lame dog sick pig excuses her time has come now, no one is listening to these stupid reasons. Throw them all in the TOWER.

The NACC sees it as a retaliation, but what the lawyer stated was acceptable. Keep in mind that legal counsel is there to advocate on behalf of his client. He is to use the legal means necessary to advance his client's interests. In this case, the lawyer stated that he would bring a complaint necause the NACC refused to allow the the counsel to call witnesses.. It was his right and his obligation. to do his utmost on behalf of the client. It is the NACC that is attempting to intimidate and bully. It is the NACC that committed a wrong when it denied the accused the right to call additional witnesses in a serious case.

Accusing the commission of bias - even before the outcome - is an act of pure intimidation.

If the NACC has evidence of a crime then it should act against the perpetrators.

The NACC has already explained that the witnesses were not involved in the the aspect of the case under review and therefore have nothing to add.

Shame on all of you who think that intimidating the NACC, EC, CC etc. should be condoned.

No it is not.

Yes, the NACC should investigate if there is evidence of the crime. However, the NACC has an obligation to investigate in an unbiased and fair manner. The NACC is on a slippery slope when it acts as both accuser, investigator and adjudicator.

I think you are confused. The accuser was not the NACC - it was the Dems.

NACC was the investigator - as it should be

You are wrong - the NACC is not the judge. It determines if there is enough evidence to take the case forward

You have absolutely no idea what evidence the NACC has - but your red goggles prejudges them. You should be ashamed

This really deserves a bravo. Yingluck's lawyers - not to mention Yingluck herself, Chalerm, Surapong, CAPO, and the UDD - have more than crossed the line into contempt of court - in some cases many times over. It's about time the law put its foot down, and it has. Bullies only succeed when they intimidate. When they don't - they fail.

Open defiance of such a corrupted institution is correct and noble.

The actions of the 2006 coup appointed judicial officials has rendered the courts null and void.

The US has stated such, both privately and publicly, which is why the judges have not been able to remove Yingluck from office.

All avenues for the yellows to usurp power are now firmly closed - justice and democracy has won the day.

Look at how pathetic it has all become.

Suthep and Abhisit in a public spat and the NACC reduced to filing frivolous charges against a no name lawyer.

Time to pack up the 5 or 6 remaining tents in Lumpini and go home.

Only embarrassment remains for the failed coup mongers.

In the not too distant future a fully elected senate will see the end of all these anti-democratic military/elite appointed officials and true independence will be returned to the courts.

The court is corrupt and dear Yingluck is not corrupt

The NACC sees it as a retaliation, but what the lawyer stated was acceptable. Keep in mind that legal counsel is there to advocate on behalf of his client. He is to use the legal means necessary to advance his client's interests. In this case, the lawyer stated that he would bring a complaint necause the NACC refused to allow the the counsel to call witnesses.. It was his right and his obligation. to do his utmost on behalf of the client. It is the NACC that is attempting to intimidate and bully. It is the NACC that committed a wrong when it denied the accused the right to call additional witnesses in a serious case.

Accusing the commission of bias - even before the outcome - is an act of pure intimidation.

If the NACC has evidence of a crime then it should act against the perpetrators.

The NACC has already explained that the witnesses were not involved in the the aspect of the case under review and therefore have nothing to add.

Shame on all of you who think that intimidating the NACC, EC, CC etc. should be condoned.

No it is not.

Yes, the NACC should investigate if there is evidence of the crime. However, the NACC has an obligation to investigate in an unbiased and fair manner. The NACC is on a slippery slope when it acts as both accuser, investigator and adjudicator.

The question is guilty or not guilty and evidence is overwhelming. Not acting would be a crime.

This really deserves a bravo. Yingluck's lawyers - not to mention Yingluck herself, Chalerm, Surapong, CAPO, and the UDD - have more than crossed the line into contempt of court - in some cases many times over. It's about time the law put its foot down, and it has. Bullies only succeed when they intimidate. When they don't - they fail.

Open defiance of such a corrupted institution is correct and noble.

The actions of the 2006 coup appointed judicial officials has rendered the courts null and void.

The US has stated such, both privately and publicly, which is why the judges have not been able to remove Yingluck from office.

All avenues for the yellows to usurp power are now firmly closed - justice and democracy has won the day.

Look at how pathetic it has all become.

Suthep and Abhisit in a public spat and the NACC reduced to filing frivolous charges against a no name lawyer.

Time to pack up the 5 or 6 remaining tents in Lumpini and go home.

Only embarrassment remains for the failed coup mongers.

In the not too distant future a fully elected senate will see the end of all these anti-democratic military/elite appointed officials and true independence will be returned to the courts.

noun: coup; plural noun: coups.

1. a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. "he was overthrown in an army coup"

2. a notable or successful stroke or move. "it was a major coup to get such a prestigious contract"

After many years of strengthening the Thai judicial system to withstand the pressures of rampant corruption, the courts scored a major judicial coup by removing the last puppet PM of the overseas fugitive crime boss Mr. Dr. Thaksin.

Note: America passes laws to prevent proper voter identification so millions of illegal immigrants can vote. One mid Western county recently reported a 140% voter turnout. Let's listen to them about how solve problems democratically

The NACC sees it as a retaliation, but what the lawyer stated was acceptable. Keep in mind that legal counsel is there to advocate on behalf of his client. He is to use the legal means necessary to advance his client's interests. In this case, the lawyer stated that he would bring a complaint necause the NACC refused to allow the the counsel to call witnesses.. It was his right and his obligation. to do his utmost on behalf of the client. It is the NACC that is attempting to intimidate and bully. It is the NACC that committed a wrong when it denied the accused the right to call additional witnesses in a serious case.

Accusing the commission of bias - even before the outcome - is an act of pure intimidation.

If the NACC has evidence of a crime then it should act against the perpetrators.

The NACC has already explained that the witnesses were not involved in the the aspect of the case under review and therefore have nothing to add.

Shame on all of you who think that intimidating the NACC, EC, CC etc. should be condoned.

No it is not.

Yes, the NACC should investigate if there is evidence of the crime. However, the NACC has an obligation to investigate in an unbiased and fair manner. The NACC is on a slippery slope when it acts as both accuser, investigator and adjudicator.

There are many jurisdictions in the world where investigation and adjudication roles are undertaken by the same body. For example look at the role of French magistrates who operate in this environment rather than as adjudicators in adversarial systems as typified by English legal systems. Clearly there are advantages and disadvantages with both systems.

As for the NACC being the accuser that is a an ambiguous statement that is had to equate with legal process. The NACC receives complaints and reports from various sources. For my understanding in this case the NACC issued a caution/warning that there were issues or potential issues with the administration of the rice scheme. An inquiry was held by the government but inquiries that may adversely affect the interests of the inquirer can hardly be considered to be in any way independent. What we do know is that one of the people involved found themselves disadvantaged by public disclosures.

From what has leaked out of the NACC it is clear that inquiry by the NACC has rejected some of the allegations made against the scheme and those involved - I refer to the transfer of large amounts of cash to overseas parties. Given this it is hard to sustain that the NACC is the accuser. However in enquires of this type issues do come to the attention of the inquiry that may not form part of the original complaints received. In an adversarial system this would not be matters that could easily be dealt with - under an inquisitorial system that are natural address as part of the function of that body.

AFAIK most if not all anti corruption bodies in the world use inquisitorial systems because in essence the plaintiff if the public and the defendants are public (normally government) bodies and those outside of that which the have interacted with. There are aspects to corrupt activities which require that investigations step on what is normally considered to be civil rights (such as the freedom not to give evidence) due to the insidious nature of the actions and the overwhelming pubic good. In NSW prior to the establishment of ICAC there were cases that came to light but were never fully investigate. For example there is a former Minister for Corrective services who was convicted of 3 counts of approving inmate releases in return for sexual favour. However during his tenure there were about 700 very questionable releases and perusal of picture of those inmates showed a high correlation of physical attributes.

One of the features of the type of environment that is conducive to corruption is one where poor administration and accountability prevails, in other words poor governance. It would be hard for anyone to say that the Rice pledging scheme was anything other than that. Those who condone, ignore or fail to preform there responsibilities also have to take a share of responsibility when things go wrong. If I understand correctly this is where the NACC inquires are at now. As a result of inquires triggered bt complaints the NACC found that there was a case to answer, Ms Yingluck has been given an opportunity to present a defence. IF the NACC finds that the evidence proves (I don't know what the applicable stand of proof is in this case) then she would be stood down and the matter would then go to the Senate for an impeachment hearing. The interim restrictions on Ms Yingluck would be necessary to real possibility that some one in that position could continue to act in inappropriate manner allowing for continuing damage to the people of Thailand.

Assuming that this case gets to an impeachment hearing not only would Ms Yingluck be on "trial" but through her defence so would the NACC would need to be able to justify their actions and decisions. If this matter gets that far then it would provide the ideal avenue to expose any deficiency and discrepancies by the NACC - and they know that.

If the NACC didn't do anything wrong then they have nothing to worry about.

Seems to me her lawyer may be onto something.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

This really deserves a bravo. Yingluck's lawyers - not to mention Yingluck herself, Chalerm, Surapong, CAPO, and the UDD - have more than crossed the line into contempt of court - in some cases many times over. It's about time the law put its foot down, and it has. Bullies only succeed when they intimidate. When they don't - they fail.

The NACC is not a court so there cannot be a "contempt of court" charge. The NACC has only investigative authority.

If the NACC didn't do anything wrong then they have nothing to worry about.

Seems to me her lawyer may be onto something.

If he's on anything it will be a one way ticket out of his profession.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The NACC sees it as a retaliation, but what the lawyer stated was acceptable. Keep in mind that legal counsel is there to advocate on behalf of his client. He is to use the legal means necessary to advance his client's interests. In this case, the lawyer stated that he would bring a complaint necause the NACC refused to allow the the counsel to call witnesses.. It was his right and his obligation. to do his utmost on behalf of the client. It is the NACC that is attempting to intimidate and bully. It is the NACC that committed a wrong when it denied the accused the right to call additional witnesses in a serious case.

I am not sure about the legal status in Thailand but in the number of jurisdiction around the world that I am familiar with lawyers are considered to be officers of the court. Their conduct need to reflect this and in most cases it is the law councils role to discipline members who break codes of conduct. The request to the law council is a measured response and one where the conduct of the lawyer is assessed by the peer of lawyers - which is one of the two circumstances that I know of in Thai law where essential people have the benefit of a jury like judgement. The other is where a matter is referred to the Senate as will be the case if Yingluck conduct is found to be appropriate.

In regard to the additional witnesses the defence council in the written submission to the NACC should have provided documentary evidence to the NACC as well as outline the witnesses that they wanted to present and how those witness could have assisted the defence of Yingluck. Given that Yingluck has already been treated with a level of generosity (document provision in spite of not turning up and additional time to present her defence) it would appear reasonable that NACC should want to get one with her hearing. It also need to be remembered that Yingluck will have the opportunity to present additional evidence and witnesses at a hearing in the Senate should the NACC find against her.

The defense are being cantankerous because they most likely believe that the Prosecution will have been instructed as to the required outcome in advance.