Supreme Court may no longer have the final say with its verdicts, but the judiciary will benefit

[webfact]

OPINION

A measure of fairness in ‘one more appeal’

By The Nation

 

The Supreme Court may no longer have the final say with its verdicts, but the judiciary will benefit
 

The handling of criminal cases involving politicians accused of wrongdoing in office should soon become more transparent. The Supreme Court’s Division of Criminal Offences against Political Office Holders plans to allow defendants to request that a separate panel of senior judges review any verdict it hands down.

 

Under the Constitution that came into effect in April, the high court’s division in charge of criminal cases against politicians will no longer have the final say, as has been the case since its inception nearly two decades ago.

 

Until now, no appeal has been possible unless new evidence emerged that prompted the Supreme Court to endorse a review of the case. This diminished the judiciary’s transparency and creditability.

 

However, the procedures are set to change for the better under the new charter, which states that defendants – and plaintiffs, too – regardless of whether there is any new evidence, have the right to lodge an appeal within 30 days after the high court hands down its verdict.

 

At this stage, it is likely that former premiers Yingluck Shinawatra and Somchai Wongsawat and other politicians will have the right to appeal negative verdicts concerning their alleged wrongdoings.

 

Yingluck is facing both criminal and civil liability charges. In the criminal case, the high court is set to deliver its verdict on August 25 as to whether the former premier was negligent in her official duties while implementing her government’s rice price-pledging scheme, as alleged by the plaintiff, the current government.

 

In the separate civil liability case, Yingluck is facing seizure of her personal assets to the tune of Bt35 billion – perceived by the plaintiff as her “share” of the compensation needed to cover the state’s losses in the rice scheme. The Supreme Administrative Court will have the final say on this matter.

 

In the criminal case before the Supreme Court, Yingluck and the plaintiff, in any possible outcome, will both have the right to request a review of the verdict by a separate panel of senior judges. This should help ensure fairness and transparency in the eyes of the public, whose perception is crucial to the integrity of the judiciary.

 

In general, any criminal or civil offence can be tried in three separate courts, all the way through to the Supreme Court, as is the arrangement in many countries. However, corruption and other serious abuses of power while in office have long been widespread among Thai politicians, regardless of their party affiliations. And it has long been held that justice cannot be served on those who hold public office and abuse their authority, regardless of the cost to taxpayers.

 

Hence, a fast-track court system was required to expedite lawsuits against those alleged to have committed serious wrongdoing. 

 

The National Anti-Corruption Commission was tasked with taking credible cases against politicians directly to the high court, which would then deliver a final verdict. This became rather problematic, however, especially in terms of public perception, in high-profile cases such as the actions brought against Yingluck and Somchai.

 

The high court is next Wednesday due to deliver a verdict in Somchai’s case regarding his alleged mishandling of the 2008 anti-government protests.

 

Overall, the additional right to seek a review of the high court’s judgement in any case should bode well for defendants as well as plaintiffs – and for the judiciary in general.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30322037

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-07-28

[inThailand]

<deleted>...Supreme Court decisions can now be challenged and overturned?

 

Isn't that convenient for corrupt judges? Look like your doing the right thing and then let someone else overturn it. Envelopes all around and defendant walks. All have a happy ending! Smoke and mirrors come to mind.

[scorecard]

 

I wonder how the additional panel of judges will be selected?

 

Perhaps the fact it's a panel of 12 reduces the possibility of collusion.

Edited July 27, 2017 by scorecard

[inThailand]

The defendant gets to pick them....for a price!

 

Is this going to be the path of the Yingluck verdict? 

[Dave67]

"In the criminal case before the Supreme Court, Yingluck and the plaintiff, in any possible outcome, will both have the right to request a review of the verdict by a separate panel of senior judges. This should help ensure fairness and transparency in the eyes of the public, whose perception is crucial to the integrity of the judiciary."

 

Delaying the ultimate verdict on Yingluck, I wonder why?

 

 

[Lupatria]

If the "final say" will be presented as a poem, I have a vague idea of its origin.

[baboon]

5 minutes ago, Lupatria said:

If the "final say" will be presented as a poem, I have a vague idea of its origin.

Why don't they just come out with it?

[klauskunkel]

the Supreme Court needs a new moniker, like:

 

Slightly Lesser Supreme Court

The Court Formerly Known as Supreme

Downsized Supreme Court

Can't Be Supreme All the Time Court

Pretend Supreme Court

 

suggestions welcome

Edited July 28, 2017 by klauskunkel