Experts push for inquisitorial system of justice
By The Nation

 

BANGKOK: -- Experts at a seminar on constitutional procedure in the organic law related to the Constitutional Court expressed the need to emphasise on the inquisitorial system over the adversarial legal system as well as allow the public to bring constitutional dispute cases to the Court.

 

The Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) on Wednesday held a seminar to hear public opinions regarding the organic law concerning the constitutional procedure.

 

The seminar was aimed at gathering opinions on three points: whether the current procedure was appropriate; how people should bring constitutional disputes to the Constitutional Court; and, what principles the judgement should be based on.

 

Constitutional Court judge Charan Phakdithanakul told the forum that although in theory the Court should adopt the inquisitorial legal system, actual real practice had met with several challenges.

 

He pointed out that the difficulties stemmed from an unclear definition of the inquisitorial legal system. The judge urged involved agents to come to an agreement on the extent of the adoption of such a system to ensure everyone was on the same page when it came to real practice.

 

Charan said current practice was influenced by the adversarial system despite the theory. He proposed that the organic law open the way for the Court to be less rigid and conduct the trial by having both sides join a meeting with the judge to reach a mutual agreement, he said.

 

He said this was to ensure that cases in the court were not settled based on the merits of legal expertise and technicality.

 

Regarding the rights of people to bring cases to the Court, he welcomed the CDC move to enable people to do so with fewer conditions compared to the previous legislation.

 

However, Charan also proposed that the organic law prescribe legitimate rules so that while people could approach the Court on their own, they did not flood the Court with unnecessary cases.

 

Charan said judgements in the Constitutional Court should be delivered as an agreement of all judges while each of them could also offer their personal opinions in the cases.

 

In addition, he also proposed that besides the verdict the Court should be able to give guidelines on procedures following the verdict.

 

Supoj Kaimuk, a former Constitutional Court judge and current CDC member, had a similar opinion on the serious adoption of the inquisitorial system.

 

He said that it was time that such a system be improved, suggesting that the Constitutional Court should hold a seminar on the matter so that all involved agencies could have mutual understanding about the procedures under the system.

 

The constitutional procedure organic law was among 10 legislations the new Constitution required the CDC to complete.

 

At the seminar to gather opinion about the law, many individuals from the judiciary as well as from the current legislative and executive branches joined the session to hear about the new law and related suggestions.

 

CDC chairman Meechai Ruchupan shared some key features written in the Constitution regarding the Constitutional Court. He said the CDC aimed to make the Court more proactive by enabling it to give a verdict in response to points raised by inquiring agencies without actual disputes taking place.

 

In addition, Meechai said the new Constitution also allowed people to bring cases to Court in case the government agencies failed to fulfil their duties required by the Constitution.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/30313491

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-04-27

I immediately thought of :-

 

 

 

And for those who don't know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system

 

As opposed to a cash based system?

An inquisitional system of justice is totally dependent on the judiciary being unbiased and incorruptible.  In Thailand it would be even worse than the current system.

16 minutes ago, futsukayoi said:

An inquisitional system of justice is totally dependent on the judiciary being unbiased and incorruptible.  In Thailand it would be even worse than the current system.

 

Unless, of course, you're one of the Elite.  Then it's the cat's meow.

20 minutes ago, futsukayoi said:

An inquisitional system of justice is totally dependent on the judiciary being unbiased and incorruptible.  In Thailand it would be even worse than the current system.

Am inquisitorial system would be very much better than the idiocy we have currently. Right now, someone makes a complaint and you are arrested regardless of how stupid the allegation is. It is left to the court, many months or years later, to assess your guilt or innocence. An inquisitorial system is designed to root out the rubbish at the start. Hence if you have a solid alibi, you are released without charge and the case stops.

The problem with introducing it is that you would then need police. Not the bandits we have currently who are only good for fleecing motorists and all manner of corruption, but ones who can actually investigate things. This is the main reason this will not get off the ground.

8 hours ago, webfact said:

this was to ensure that cases in the court were not settled based on the merits of legal expertise and technicality.

Isn't the present system one more of "Let's Make A Deal?"

 

8 hours ago, webfact said:

conduct the trial by having both sides join a meeting with the judge to reach a mutual agreement

Thai judges will become the next Thai billionaires (baht).

Well they better buy some racks and thumb screw and suchlike then.

Well, that was unexpected.

Better than the current "justice" system.  None. 

9 hours ago, darksidedog said:

Am inquisitorial system would be very much better than the idiocy we have currently. Right now, someone makes a complaint and you are arrested regardless of how stupid the allegation is. It is left to the court, many months or years later, to assess your guilt or innocence. An inquisitorial system is designed to root out the rubbish at the start. Hence if you have a solid alibi, you are released without charge and the case stops.

The problem with introducing it is that you would then need police. Not the bandits we have currently who are only good for fleecing motorists and all manner of corruption, but ones who can actually investigate things. This is the main reason this will not get off the ground.

The problem arises when they pull out your finger-nails or hook a generator to your testicles in order to convince you that you don't have a sound alibi and the pain will go away once you simply confess.

Goodbye to openness and transparency. Cash has always been preferred  over legal expertise.

Read that article twice and am now going to have a lie down in the hope my headache goes away. 

 

May try  to read again later in hope I can make sense of story. 

 

Only if I have paracetamol on stand by mind.