Paiboon queried over justice fund use

[webfact]

Paiboon queried over justice fund use
OLAN LERTRATTANADAMRONGKUL
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- NATIONAL Legislative Assembly member Wallop Tangkananurak has questioned Justice Minister Paiboon Koomchaya at an NLA meeting over the appropriate use of the justice fund.

Wallop contends that the fund last year was improperly used to help defendants involved in terrorism cases. Some of those defendants have reportedly fled custody.

"Last year there were many cases that failed to comply with the justice fund's regulations", he said.

Wallop said the rules related to those cases were not followed as the fund must serve public interests and not violate moral standards.

Wallop asked Paiboon about the rules governing the granting of the fund and how it was overseen because he did not want it to be used by those deemed to be destroying the country.

Paiboon accepted that the operation of the fund last year followed a Cabinet resolution of the Yingluck Shinawatra administration and "this did not abide by the regulations of the justice fund".

He said that the current government was not using the fund in the same way as everything was based on regulations.

Wallop asked Paiboon to ensure the fund was used correctly so taxpayer money was not misused again.

The justice fund, overseen by the Department of Justice, is supposed to be used to help indigent defendants on matters relating to legal consultations and bail placements, human rights violations and legal education.

Paiboon said the fund was last year used for 2,200 cases worth Bt47 million in total.

Nearly 80 per cent of that amount, or Bt36 million, was for bail placements, 13 per cent was for hiring lawyers, and 5 per cent was for court fees.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Paiboon-queried-over-justice-fund-use-30271013.html


-- The Nation 2015-10-16

[waldroj]

Another piece of codswallop that leaves more questions than answers.

We are told that Wallop asked Paiboon to ensure the fund was used correctly. He argues that previously, many cases failed to comply with the fund’s regulations, and that it was used to help defendants involved in terrorism cases.

Despite Wallops claims, we are also told the fund is there to help “indigent defendants on matters relating to legal consultations and bail placements, human rights violations and legal education”.

According to Paiboon, last year the fund was used for 2,200 cases worth a total of Bt47 million. Of this, nearly 80 per cent (Bt36 million) was for bail placements, 13 per cent was for hiring lawyers (legal consultations), and 5 per cent was for court fees.

From the information in this article, it would seem that the money was spent in accordance with its intended purpose (the only question is whether the defendants were indeed indigent).

As we are not given a comprehensive breakdown of who received what, we can only infer that (on average), Bt 16,364 per person went towards bail placements, Bt 2,777 per person was used for hiring lawyers, and Bt 1,068 per person spent on court fees. There appears to be nothing too excessive in these figures (quite the opposite in fact).

Unfortunately, we are not told how many cases failed to comply, nor how many were involved in terrorism (but that should be immaterial). Regardless of the nature of the crime, if a defendant is indeed deemed to be indigent, they should not be denied access to appropriate funding to assist in their legal defence!

Even in Thailand today, under Section 4 of the Interim Constitution now in place:

Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, all human dignity, rights, liberties and equality of the people protected by the constitutional convention under a democratic regime of government with the King as the Head of State, and by international obligations bound by Thailand, shall be protected and upheld by this Constitution.

One must question Wallop’s timing and motive, especially as in September, the NLA voted 159 to two (with seven abstentions), to pass a new Justice Fund Act. Which, according to Pongchai Warachit (Chairman of the special drafting committee), had been prepared to offer people access to justice during their fight in court, while eliminating inequality in the society.

[Seastallion]

Legal assistance for indigent defendants, good. Bail, though? Ridiculous!

[thelonius]

Legal assistance for indigent defendants, good. Bail, though? Ridiculous!

Why do you find the principle of using the Justice Fund to provide indigents the means to meet their bail conditions "ridiculous"? Are only the rich or non indigent to be allowed access to bail - that indigents should stay in jail until sentence is handed down or they were acquitted?

One of the main reasons for the new Justice Bill was to address the inequality of the existing fund which only provided assistance to approximately 20% of the people who needed it.

[smutcakes]

I wonder if Paiboon has used the money to help his assistant who is out on bail for the alledged murder of his wife.

[thaiturkey]

Legal assistance for indigent defendants, good. Bail, though? Ridiculous!

HEAR, HEAR !

Bail becomes pointless if government money is used. The defendant can flee with impunity.

A more appropriate use of Justice Dept. funds would be to set up an EFFECTIVE AGENCY to deal with the huge problem of

CROOKED LAWYERS and Judges. The current system is corrupt and useless!

[Ulic]

Legal assistance for indigent defendants, good. Bail, though? Ridiculous!

Why do you find the principle of using the Justice Fund to provide indigents the means to meet their bail conditions "ridiculous"? Are only the rich or non indigent to be allowed access to bail - that indigents should stay in jail until sentence is handed down or they were acquitted?

One of the main reasons for the new Justice Bill was to address the inequality of the existing fund which only provided assistance to approximately 20% of the people who needed it.

Bail is to ensure appearance, if the defendants do not provide the bail they have no incentive

to appear in court, it is not there money why should they care if it is confiscated for non

appearance in court.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Some of those defendants have reportedly fled custody.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this sentence.

Does that mean some broke out of jail/prison??? I don't think so.

Dot it mean that the government stupidly put up government bail money for some of these domestic terrorists, and that they later jumped bail. Probably.

If they had been in custody in the first place, then they wouldn't have been able to flee!

[Thai at Heart]

Legal assistance for indigent defendants, good. Bail, though? Ridiculous!

Why do you find the principle of using the Justice Fund to provide indigents the means to meet their bail conditions "ridiculous"? Are only the rich or non indigent to be allowed access to bail - that indigents should stay in jail until sentence is handed down or they were acquitted?

One of the main reasons for the new Justice Bill was to address the inequality of the existing fund which only provided assistance to approximately 20% of the people who needed it.

Bail is to ensure appearance, if the defendants do not provide the bail they have no incentive

to appear in court, it is not there money why should they care if it is confiscated for non

appearance in court.

Well of course, having the state provide bail is a ridiculous contradiction anyway.....But TIT Edited October 16, 2015 by Thai at Heart

[Seastallion]

Legal assistance for indigent defendants, good. Bail, though? Ridiculous!

Why do you find the principle of using the Justice Fund to provide indigents the means to meet their bail conditions "ridiculous"? Are only the rich or non indigent to be allowed access to bail - that indigents should stay in jail until sentence is handed down or they were acquitted?

One of the main reasons for the new Justice Bill was to address the inequality of the existing fund which only provided assistance to approximately 20% of the people who needed it.

Because the whole idea about bail is a bond that will be sacrificed if you do not come back to face a trial. If the bail is "free money", what has a guilty person got as motivation to face justice? What has an innocent pertson got for motivation, for that matter? The proxy fine is paid!

I take your point about rich people being able to post bail ....but usually, bail is set at a level that affects the accused, ie, a rich person posts a large bail and a poor person a lesser bail.

[waldroj]

Guys,

Some of you seem to be missing the point with regard to the fund being used for bail.

If the defendant is deemed to be indigent then it is unlikely they will have sufficient funds of their own to pay the bail.

As Thailand accepts the presumption of innocence, it does seem appropriate to provide the mechanism for a defendant (who meets the fund's eligibility criteria) to not be held in remand while awaiting trial.

[Acharn]

Legal assistance for indigent defendants, good. Bail, though? Ridiculous!

I would need more information. Releasing defendants on their own recognizance was a good reform in the U.S. about thirty years ago, but from what I read on the internet they've gone very far the other way now, locking people up if they miss a court appearance and don't have money to pay the fine. Some areas are using it as a revenue source rather than raising taxes. The thing is, if people know when their court date is, and if they understand that payment plans can be worked out (some jurisdictions apparently never tell people that), people with community ties are usually not flight risks.