CDC Chairman: Court trials in absentia will be allowed under new law on criminal procedure for political office holders

 

BANGKOK, 12 May 2017 (NNT) - The Constitution Drafting Commission Chairman has confirmed that the new law on criminal procedure for political office holders will allow court proceedings to continue even when defendants are absent. 

CDC Chairman Meechai Ruchuphan said today that drafting of the organic law on criminal procedure for political office holders is at the stage where wording is being adjusted. 

After this process is completed, the CDC will send the draft to the National Legislative Assembly next week for consideration, he said. 

Mr. Meechai added that the changes have been made in accordance with suggestions from the Supreme Court but the CDC will still leave in the part that allows trial in absentia when the defendant or defendants run away and are out of the country. 

He said that although the Supreme Court has disagreed with this provision because of concerns that a prosecutor or investigators with ill intentions may file a case without seeking an arrest, the CDC has made sure that this type of trial can take place only when it is confirmed that an arrest is not possible.

 

-- nnt 2017-05-12

Trials in absentia is not a good idea. The high profile "redbull"  killer is a case in point. Interpol or the police of any country need to bring this man? back to face the charges and either convict him or find him innocent. Meanwhile close his bank accounts down to assist him to return to face the music.

another political witch hunt

how do you close the bank accounts? 

do you think these guys only use airplane travel to get to skiing and golfing events?

any more than that "foreign investors" means the investors are actually foreigners.. not just their bankers?  it's kind of like how "iced coffee" is actually a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with coffee..... or maybe even ice.... hee hee heee!!!!!

well, they don't ask brown people nor anyone else in teller lines for their national passports... not in the USA, for instance.... and any Thai or most other overseas securities transactions done for a USA bank or stock broker's customer is kept 100% secret through the use of intermediaries and nominees.... without even for the asking or even if you ask that they register the securities in your real name so you can file a correct tax return... and it violates the US Thai Double Taxation Treaty (the Non Discrimination Clause).

and that works for bonds as well as equities.

there's a way to get through it.... but it ain't an easy process at all. as for FATCA... it's only get to us... here.... on our Thai bank accounts.... not the other way around at all so far. not that I know of or have ever seen in the USA... but you do need a Social Security number and pass a driver's test and have a local mailing address.... gee those make it real tough.......... not.



 

Edited May 11, 20179 yr by maewang99

Can't think who they could possibly be after with this change in the law.

In Absentia trials are a very bad idea, and to bring it forward forPolitical persons suggests one man in particular is in the target. sights.

Prosecutors here DO deliberately seek and get trials without having notified defendants, or seeking an arrest, until AFTER the In Absentia trial.

They can then wait 30 days for the appeal period to run out and the "convicted" person is in jail with few options, for a case they often knew nothing about.

In Absentia violates audi alteram partem (hear the other party), also known as the second principal of natural justice.

It is a bad law anywhere. In Thailand with judges who will give whatever verdict they are told to, it is seriously worrying.

 

...self serving cxxholsters, think they will put TS on trial....

I think it's a good idea,if the suspect does not want to be in Thailand,but prefers

to stay outside of the country until the statute of limitations kicks in and they

can return to Thailand a free person, that's no justice at all.

regards worgeordie

Perhaps Thailand wouldn’t need this highly controversial law if…

 

…the authorities weren’t in the annoying habit of publicly announcing a week ahead that they’re going to issue an arrest warrant for a suspect in order to give them plenty time to arrange their escape and pad their foreign bank accounts with sufficient funds.

 

…judges would finally abandon the absurd reasoning for not issuing an arrest warrant that a suspect is not a flight risk just because they have a permanent address.

 

…law enforcement would finally stop to be taken for fools by suspects who ignore summons after summons after summons without having to fear any consequences.

 

…authorities would immediately revoke the passports of suspects who ignore a single summons in order to prevent them from leaving the country and inform them that they’re in fact prohibited from traveling abroad until further notice.

 

…suspects who flee abroad are automatically slapped with an additional charge of actively trying to evade justice.

 

…public prosecutors would not drag their feet for years on end until the statute of limitations kicks in. If a “nobody” can go to trial and be convicted within 2 weeks, so can a “somebody.”

 

But then again, it is clear why this law is going to be instated in the first place, namely solely for the purpose to finally go after one certain man.

Edited May 12, 20179 yr by Misterwhisper

about time

6 hours ago, darksidedog said:

In Absentia trials are a very bad idea, and to bring it forward forPolitical persons suggests one man in particular is in the target. sights.

Prosecutors here DO deliberately seek and get trials without having notified defendants, or seeking an arrest, until AFTER the In Absentia trial.

They can then wait 30 days for the appeal period to run out and the "convicted" person is in jail with few options, for a case they often knew nothing about.

In Absentia violates audi alteram partem (hear the other party), also known as the second principal of natural justice.

It is a bad law anywhere. In Thailand with judges who will give whatever verdict they are told to, it is seriously worrying.

 

not worrying at all, if someone decides not to appear in court to defend the charges against them that is their choice - it's a bit like refusing to take a breath test............guilty

 

If the reason to not appear is out of their control then that is a different matter.

Why not simply change the law on statute of limitations that would apply to everyone, not just political office holders? That would be consistent with equality of justice, supposedly one of the junta's reform objectives.

 

For example, after a set number of days (ie., 90) after an arrest warrant has been issued, forwarded to Interpol (for evasion outside the country) or after foreign extradition requested, the statute of limitations is suspended until the accused appears in court in compliance with the arrest warrant.

In Thailand, there are two types of politicians (defined as involved in government): elected ones and unelected ones (the later category being given a more important role in the new constitution). It seems that elected politicians will be subject to plenty of controls and punishments, while unelected politicians get a free pass, for reasons we understand too well.

7 hours ago, darksidedog said:

In Absentia trials are a very bad idea, and to bring it forward forPolitical persons suggests one man in particular is in the target. sights.

Prosecutors here DO deliberately seek and get trials without having notified defendants, or seeking an arrest, until AFTER the In Absentia trial.

They can then wait 30 days for the appeal period to run out and the "convicted" person is in jail with few options, for a case they often knew nothing about.

In Absentia violates audi alteram partem (hear the other party), also known as the second principal of natural justice.

It is a bad law anywhere. In Thailand with judges who will give whatever verdict they are told to, it is seriously worrying.

 

Now people can just pickup and leave.. and then wait out the statute of limitations on their crime. Besides we are not talking here about people without means we are talking here about political office holders. They can afford the best lawyers.. so don't worry so much. This will only affect people like the criminal in Dubai who has many court cases waiting for him. 

 

I would find this a bad thing if it would affect common people who are not rich.. as long as you got money here you can afford a good defense. Do you really believe Thaksin (because its pointing at him) cant do a video call to testify.. or answer questions through a lawyer if he really wanted ?

3 hours ago, Misterwhisper said:

Perhaps Thailand wouldn’t need this highly controversial law if…

 

…the authorities weren’t in the annoying habit of publicly announcing a week ahead that they’re going to issue an arrest warrant for a suspect in order to give them plenty time to arrange their escape and pad their foreign bank accounts with sufficient funds.

 

…judges would finally abandon the absurd reasoning for not issuing an arrest warrant that a suspect is not a flight risk just because they have a permanent address.

 

…law enforcement would finally stop to be taken for fools by suspects who ignore summons after summons after summons without having to fear any consequences.

 

…authorities would immediately revoke the passports of suspects who ignore a single summons in order to prevent them from leaving the country and inform them that they’re in fact prohibited from traveling abroad until further notice.

 

…suspects who flee abroad are automatically slapped with an additional charge of actively trying to evade justice.

 

…public prosecutors would not drag their feet for years on end until the statute of limitations kicks in. If a “nobody” can go to trial and be convicted within 2 weeks, so can a “somebody.”

 

But then again, it is clear why this law is going to be instated in the first place, namely solely for the purpose to finally go after one certain man.

Your last paragraph assumes that this law is to be applied retrospectively, which is rarely the case. While that fugitive thoroughly deserves to have the much more serious charges that are pending heard, do you have any proof that is the case?

And presumably, if found guilty in absentia, they can serve prison time in absentia??

18 hours ago, halloween said:

Your last paragraph assumes that this law is to be applied retrospectively, which is rarely the case.

I agree as the "norm."

But can be expected take place about every four years when a military junta comes to power. The NCPO's retrospective application of the 2007 Constitution abolished by the NCPO to try Yingluck for negligent dereliction of duty is such a case. In the presence of absolute power, the only norm is abuse of power itself.

3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

I agree as the "norm."

But can be expected take place about every four years when a military junta comes to power. The NCPO's retrospective application of the 2007 Constitution abolished by the NCPO to try Yingluck for negligent dereliction of duty is such a case. In the presence of absolute power, the only norm is abuse of power itself.

Oh I can imagine all the Thaksin supporters moaning about his civil/human/whatever rights if he was convicted of the billion baht bank scam, which would be the easiest and fastest case to prosecute. But THAT abuse of power should be ignored, to protect his rights.

6 minutes ago, halloween said:

But THAT abuse of power should be ignored

The chose was the junta's to decide what its priorities were. It chose to abolish the legal foundation for abuse of office vis a vis the 2007 Constitution in order to protect its own act of treason as defined by the 2007 Constitution.

But don't cry for Prayut. The 2017 Constitution still gives Prayut absolute power for abuse of office with immunity. So Lose-Win for the junta.

1 minute ago, Srikcir said:

The chose was the junta's to decide what its priorities were. It chose to abolish the legal foundation for abuse of office vis a vis the 2007 Constitution in order to protect its own act of treason as defined by the 2007 Constitution.

But don't cry for Prayut. The 2017 Constitution still gives Prayut absolute power for abuse of office with immunity. So Lose-Win for the junta.

Oh please. A coup was going to be illegal no matter what constitution was in effect. And immunity was well justified by their actions of removing the Shinawatra's grubby paws from the people's pockets.

Which is getting away from the subject - why should a fugitive criminal be allowed 'rights' which prevent the course of his prosecution? You claim it would be an abuse of power to prosecute a criminal who had no qualms abusing his power to enrich himself. Moreover, if prosecuting him in absentia is so abusive, he has the remedy of making himself available to the courts.

More importantly, if someone does not appear in court, a statute of limitations must be excluded.
That an escape favors impunity is wrong.
Also, in case of serious crimes, no release should be granted against bail, if only one appeal without any relevant facts which include a new presumption of innocence or mitigating new insights.
Many criminals who are sentenced to long term prison sentences,
often regain their freedom immediately after the verdict, simply by submitting an bail- and appeal application.  

Edited May 13, 20179 yr by tomacht8