Administrative Court judges disagree with charter draft

BANGKOK: -- Judges of the Central Administrative Court and Supreme Administrative Court voted Sunday to oppose some provisions of the new draft charter that would transfer the execution of administrative court rules to a department under the court of justice.

The judges said the administrative court must work in parallel with the court of justice so the execution of the rulings must be carried out by an agency under the administrative court.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Administrative-Court-judges-disagree-with-charter--30256983.html

-- The Nation 2015-03-29

In other words we write our own rules so as to extract the most we can from bribes to get correct judgement for our elites, This is our return to happiness.

Someone wants to hold onto power they think they have? They need to read clause 44 of the interim constitution. Dada has all the power?

Oops! The Judiciary are definitely central to "The Good People".

Could there be cracks appearing?

Out with the ombudsman.

Out with the human rights commission.

Out with the ec

Out with the health minister.

Out with the judge's.

Didn't all these people support this government into power?

Be careful what you wish for. ?

Oops! The Judiciary are definitely central to "The Good People".

Could there be cracks appearing?

Not at all, they simply don't like another body pinching some of their work and theirs being downgraded. A bit like the Human right's Organisation being told that they are losing some of theirs to another administration (as if that's going to make a difference).

Little of the darft charter has been revealed to the public to allow any serious analysis of its myriad provisions.

So with little background information, I believe the intent of transfer of the execution of administrative court rules to a department under the court of justice is a practical answer to a swamped judicial court system wherein the simplest crimes may take years before even getting to trial.

In various democratic nations admininstrative clerks are found frequently as the first level of judicial proceedings when the crime is in the nature of a "misdemeanor." The number of misdemeanor cases probaly out number serious criminal cases by 5 to 1. People charged with misdemeanors usually are released on minor bail amounts pending ajudication of their charge.

Typically, the setting is in a court with all the attendent requirements of a court such as testimony under oath, the absence of hearsay evidence, and the absence of legal counsel. The court also does not include a prosecutor but may have the administative clerk function in that role to present the case against the defendent based on police investigation and evidence. The clerk will decide if the defendent presented reasonable evidence to show innocence. If guilt is ruled and the defendent disagrees, the defendent has the right to request a full trial with all the attednant delays and additional costs. The judicial process becomes one more of a choice by the defendent!

So basically the charter would re-delegate such judicial proceedings away from the limited availability of judges to a larger pool of administrative clerks of the court to provide more timely prosecution of cases. Leave the judges to the more difficult and serious crimes where their expertise is necessary for faithful carriage of justice.

Edited March 30, 201511 yr by Srikcir

Out with the ombudsman.

Out with the human rights commission.

Out with the ec

Out with the health minister.

Out with the judge's.

Didn't all these people support this government into power?

Be careful what you wish for. ?

Absolutely hilarious. These people were the devil himself when they opposed the dirty deeds of Pheu-Thai.

Can you spell 'hypocrite' ?.

ps. That 'human rights commission' deserve to be scattered to the wind : they are a disgrace to the phrase 'human rights'. Only the lowest of the low would use such an organisation for political purposes in the way they have.