Revision in appeal to Supreme Court to ensure justice to politicians: CDC

[rooster59]

Revision in appeal to Supreme Court to ensure justice to politicians: CDC

supawadee wangsri

 

BANGKOK, 6 August 2016 (NNT) – The Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) has insisted the postulated revision in lodging an appeal by politicians to the Supreme Court is in line with international practices. 

CDC Chairman Meechai Ruchuphan said the draft charter seeks to widen the politicians' grounds for appeal to the Supreme Court in charge of criminal cases against politicians. He said such propounded revisions conform to international standards of appeal and can ensure justice to any defendant politicians. 

Under the draft charter, an appeal can be lodged if the defendant politicians believe factual evidence and legal charges produced during court trials are disputable, he said. 

The CDC chairman added that the draft charter supports and protects all religions and sects.

 

 

-- nnt 2016-08-06

[xineohp]

It would appear that the CDC proposes to draft laws that would be a duplication of, and run parallel to, those already in use by parliament itself.  A legally constituted parliament has the authority to call before the bar any member deemed to be in contravention of parliament's standing orders.  It also has the authority to hand down punishment should the member be found to have contravened those standing orders.  The current law allowing for a politician to appeal any conviction should be no more and no less than that for an ordinary citizen.  One should always be cognisant of the fact that politicians are the servants of the people.    

[Lupatria]

56 minutes ago, xineohp said:

It would appear that the CDC proposes to draft laws that would be a duplication of, and run parallel to, those already in use by parliament itself.  A legally constituted parliament has the authority to call before the bar any member deemed to be in contravention of parliament's standing orders.  It also has the authority to hand down punishment should the member be found to have contravened those standing orders.  The current law allowing for a politician to appeal any conviction should be no more and no less than that for an ordinary citizen.  One should always be cognisant of the fact that politicians are the servants of the people.    

Am I the only one missing the term "influential figures" in this?

[waldroj]

Widen the grounds of appeal AND ensure justice for "defendant" politicians.

 

I love it when they justify their actions by saying that it is in line with international practices. Be that as it may, as I see it, Meechai is not being entirely honest when he says "under the draft charter, an appeal can be lodged if the defendant politicians believe factual evidence and legal charges produced during court trials are disputable".

 

This statement would have been much closer to the truth under the 2007 Constitution, Article 278 Para 3 which said:

 

In the case where the sentenced person of the Supreme Court of Justice's Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions produces additional evidence, which may substantially alter the facts of the case, such person shall appeal to the General Meeting of the Supreme Court of Justice within thirty days as from the date of the judgement of the Supreme Court of Justice's Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions.

 

However, the CDC altered that wording so the 2016 Document, Section 195 Para 4, now reads:

 

An appeal against a judgment of the Supreme Court Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions shall be submitted to the general meeting of the Supreme Court within thirty days from the date of issuance of such judgment.

 

Which I interpret to be - why not appeal, you've got nothing to lose, AND you'll get plenty of extra free-time to quarantine your loot and plan your exit.

 

Nowhere does the 2016 document state (or infer) that an appeal can be lodged if a defendant politician believes factual evidence and legal charges produced during court trials are disputable. In fact, under the revised wording, the onus of proof shifts directly onto the Supreme Court, and this could allow recalcitrant public figures to lodge frivolous appeals (to further tie up the Supreme Court and delay their punishment) even though they were convicted of a crime where the evidence against them in the first judgement was overwhelming!

 

With regard to Meechai's reference to factual evidence, the 2016 Document does say, in Section 235 Para 8:

 

In considering the case, the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions shall base on the inquiry file of the National Counter Corruption Commission and, in the interest of justice, the Court shall have the power to order further inquiry into fact and evidence.

 

So, the potential is now there for the Supreme Court to be swamped with appeals from "criminal" politicians. Just as well the CDS included Section 279 in the 2016 Constitution to justify the actions of the junta and its cronies since they usurped control.