Bangkok Legal Service

“Let one of the following answers (A) or (B) be selected. The police arrested Mr. Daeng, Mr. Kiao, and Mr. Kao jointly for allegedly assaulting Mr. Kiao during the investigation. The three individuals pleaded not guilty. The Provincial Court, led by the investigating officer, brought charges against them. On the same day, the investigating officer believed that Mr. Kao was a soldier and proceeded with the case in the Military Court. Mr. Kiao was then taken into custody by the Juvenile Protection and Child Welfare Probation Office for Mr. Daeng. However, the investigating officers concluded the investigation report without a final judgment, and therefore requested a postponement of the hearing from the Taling Chan Provincial Court. Subsequently, on March 4, 2048, at 08:00 AM, the investigating officers discovered that Mr. Kiao was 19 years old and requested to be placed under the care of the Juvenile Protection and Child Welfare Probation Office. They then requested a postponement of the hearing at 09:30 AM on the same day. The Taling Chan Provincial Court granted the postponement. On March 5, 2048, at 09:00 AM, the Military Prosecutor found that Mr. Kao was a civilian and returned him to the investigating officers. A request for postponement and detention was filed against Mr. Kao in that day. Taling Chan refused to grant a postponement. During the second postponement hearing, the court granted a six-day postponement for Mr. Daeng. However, after two days of postponement, the bailiff returned Mr. Daeng, fearing he would flee. The investigating officers issued a six-day arrest warrant for Mr. Daeng. The court approved the request. The following shall be determined: whether the order of the Taling Chan Provincial Court is valid. Why answer option (A) is correct: Because the Taling Chan Provincial Court’s granting of a postponement is valid. This is because the investigating officer mistakenly took Mr. Kiao to the juvenile protection and welfare office and took him back, and he was then placed under the care of the Juvenile Protection and Child Welfare Probation Office, which does not count as a period of time that must be requested to be postponed to the court. This is according to Section 7(2) of the Royal Decree on the Establishment of Provincial Courts and Court Proceedings, Chapter 499, Criminal Code, Section 7(2) (second paragraph). The court still has a reservation regarding the request for detention. The Taling Chan Provincial Court’s refusal to grant a postponement is invalid because the case of Mr. Kao is still not complete. Because the time the suspect was prosecuted at the Military Court was not included in the forty-eight-hour postponement period, as stipulated in Section 7(2) (second paragraph) and the court has not yet issued a detention order, the court’s order is still incomplete. The case of Mr. Daeng, the Taling Chan Provincial Court issued a six-day arrest warrant, but only issued a four-day arrest warrant because the suspect was under the control of the investigating officer after the court granted a postponement, the investigating officer must bring the suspect to the court as soon as possible to issue an arrest warrant for the suspect, the time that the court has granted a postponement, the postponement must be made according to Section 8(3). From the shop of Ms. Lek, which is a crime under the Penal Code, punishable by imprisonment of five to ten years, the Director of the Bangkok Metropolitan Juvenile Protection Office considered it and agreed to allow him to be in a good state, without a trial, and the control of the Bangkok Metropolitan Juvenile Protection Office by the Director, proposed this opinion to the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor, the Director of the Bangkok Metropolitan Juvenile Protection Office and the investigation report, and found that Mr. Po could return to a good state without a trial. The Royal Decree on the Establishment of Juvenile and Family Courts and Juvenile and Family Court Proceedings Act B.E. 2534, Section 63, can it be applied? Why? Furthermore, if it appears that Ms. Lek knew that the Director of the Bangkok Metropolitan Juvenile Protection Office had a view to not prosecute Mr. Po, Ms. Lek intended to file a charge against Mr. Po in the Juvenile Court as follows: It shall be determined whether Ms. Lek has the power to prosecute, why. Option (A) of the Royal Decree on the Establishment of Juvenile and Family Courts and Juvenile and Family Court Proceedings Act B.E. 2534. Section 63 (first paragraph). If in the case that the Director of the Bangkok Metropolitan Juvenile Protection Office issues a non-prosecution order for a juvenile or youth who is accused of committing a crime, the juvenile protection office has considered and found that the juvenile may return to a good state without a trial, and the juvenile agrees to be under the control of the juvenile protection office, and the Director has proposed this opinion to the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor or the juvenile has been, but in this case, even if the Director of the Bangkok Metropolitan Juvenile Protection Office has a view that Mr. Po may return to a good state without a trial, by Mr. Po’s control of the Bangkok Metropolitan Juvenile Protection Office and the prosecution’s office, the juvenile protection office, the prosecution’s office will not be able to apply the non-prosecution order issued by the Director because it is prohibited by law, the Prosecutor will issue a non-prosecution order for Mr. Po based on the Royal Decree on the Establishment of Juvenile and Family Courts and Juvenile and Family Court Proceedings Act B.E. 2534, Section 63, does not apply. Ms. Lek has no right to file a charge against Mr. Po in the Juvenile Court, and Ms. Lek will be authorized by the Director of the Bangkok Metropolitan Juvenile Protection Office to file a charge. According to Section 64 of the Royal Decree on the Establishment of Juvenile and Family Courts and Juvenile and Family Court Proceedings Act B.E. 2534, if the Director of the Bangkok Metropolitan Juvenile Protection Office issues a non-prosecution order for a juvenile or youth, the juvenile protection office can file a charge, and Ms. Lek can request the court to authorize the filing of a charge, or not authorize it, the court’s order shall be final, according to Section 64 (third paragraph).

(B) Regarding the case of Mr. Kiao, the Taling Chan Provincial Court’s granting of a postponement is valid. This is because the investigating officer mistakenly took Mr. Kiao to the juvenile protection and welfare office and took him back, and he was then placed under the care of the Juvenile Protection and Child Welfare Probation Office, which does not count as a period of time that must be requested to be postponed to the court. This is according to Section 7(2) of the Royal Decree on the Establishment of Provincial Courts and Court Proceedings, Chapter 499, Criminal Code, Section 7(2) (second paragraph). The court still has a reservation regarding the request for detention. The Taling Chan Provincial Court’s refusal to grant a postponement is invalid because the case of Mr. Kao is still not complete. Because the time the suspect was prosecuted at the Military Court was not included in the forty-eight-hour postponement period, as stipulated in Section 7(2) (second paragraph) and the court has not yet issued a detention order, the court’s order is still incomplete. The case of Mr. Daeng, the Taling Chan Provincial Court issued a six-day arrest warrant, but only issued a four-day arrest warrant because the suspect was under the control of the investigating officer after the court granted a postponement, the investigating officer must bring the suspect to the court as soon as possible to issue an arrest warrant for the suspect, the time that the court has granted a postponement, the postponement must be made according to Section 8(3). From the shop of Ms. Lek, which is a crime under the Penal Code, punishable by imprisonment of five to ten years, the Director of the Bangkok Metropolitan Juvenile Protection Office considered it and agreed to allow him to be in a good state, without a trial, and the control of the Bangkok Metropolitan Juvenile Protection Office by the Director, proposed this opinion to the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor, the Director of the Bangkok Metropolitan Juvenile Protection Office and the investigation report, and found that Mr. Po could return to a good state without a trial. The Royal Decree on the Establishment of Juvenile and Family Courts and Juvenile and Family Court Proceedings Act B.E. 2534, Section 63, can it be applied? Why? Furthermore, if it appears that Ms. Lek knew that the Director of the Bangkok Metropolitan Juvenile Protection Office had a view to not prosecute Mr. Po, Ms. Lek intended to file a charge against Mr. Po in the Juvenile Court as follows: It shall be determined whether Ms. Lek has the power to prosecute, why. Option (A) of the Royal Decree on the Establishment of Juvenile and Family Courts and Juvenile and Family Court Proceedings Act B.E. 2534. Section 63 (first paragraph). If in the case that the Director of the Bangkok Metropolitan Juvenile Protection Office issues a non-prosecution order for a juvenile or youth who is accused of committing a crime, the juvenile protection office has considered and found that the juvenile may return to a good state without a trial, and the juvenile agrees to be under the control of the juvenile protection office, and the Director has proposed this opinion to the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor or the juvenile has been, but in this case, even if the Director of the Bangkok Metropolitan Juvenile Protection Office has a view that Mr. Po may return to a good state without a trial, by Mr. Po’s control of the Bangkok Metropolitan Juvenile Protection Office and the prosecution’s office, the juvenile protection office, the prosecution’s office will not be able to apply the non-prosecution order issued by the Director because it is prohibited by law, the Prosecutor will issue a non-prosecution order for Mr. Po based on the Royal Decree on the Establishment of Juvenile and Family Courts and Juvenile and Family Court Proceedings Act B.E. 2534, Section 63, does not apply. Ms. Lek has no right to file a charge against Mr. Po in the Juvenile Court, and Ms. Lek will be authorized by the Director of the Bangkok Metropolitan Juvenile Protection Office to file a charge.