Proper Procedures for Interrogating Minors in Criminal Investigations
Mr. Daeng, aged 15 years, and Mr. Dam, aged 17 years, jointly assaulted and raped Ms. Ying, aged 16 years. Subsequently, Mr. Daeng and Mr. Dam were apprehended, and the investigating officer conducted the following investigation: During the interrogation of Ms. Ying, in her capacity as the victim, Investigator A provided one psychologist and one prosecutor to participate in the interrogation. However, the victim informed Investigator A that she did not wish for the prosecutor to participate in the interrogation. Nevertheless, Investigator A conducted the interrogation with the aforementioned psychologist and prosecutor present. During the interrogation of Mr. Daeng, in his capacity as the defendant, Mr. Daeng requested that his father be present to listen to the interrogation. However, the investigating officer deemed that the psychologist, prosecutor, and lawyer were already present listening to the interrogation, and Mr. Daeng’s father was also present to listen. During the interrogation of Mr. Dam, in his capacity as the defendant, before commencing the questioning, the Investigator A asked Mr. Dam if he had a lawyer. Mr. Dam stated that he did not have a lawyer. The investigator then conducted the interrogation of Mr. Dam with the investigator, without providing a lawyer for Mr. Dam.
It is requested that the court adjudicate whether the interrogation of the victim and the interrogation of the defendant were proper or improper, considering the following: In the interrogation of the victim, who is a minor under 18 years of age, according to Section 133 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, when the victim, a minor, dislikes the aforementioned prosecutor participating in the interrogation of the victim, the prosecutor must be replaced. Without a prosecutor, the interrogation of the victim is improper under Section 133 (3) and Section 134 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states, “…shall apply by analogy to the interrogation of the defendant under 18 years of age, and to Section 133 shall state that ‘In cases where the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term of three years or more, or in cases where the penalty is imprisonment for a term less than three years and the victim or witness is a minor requesting or in cases of assault on a minor under eighteen years of age, the interrogation of the minor as a victim or witness must be conducted in a suitable place for the minor and must have a psychologist or social worker, a person known to the minor, and the prosecutor participate in the interrogation.'” Therefore, when Mr. Daeng, the defendant, a minor aged 15 years, requested that his father be present to listen to the interrogation, but the investigator did not provide for his father to be present, this is improper under Section 133 (3) and Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
According to Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in cases where the defendant is under 18 years of age, on the day the investigator informs the defendant of the charges, before commencing the questioning, the investigator must ask the defendant if he has a lawyer. If he does not, the investigator must then provide a lawyer for the defendant.
Furthermore, even though Mr. Dam, a minor aged 17 years, stated that he did not have a lawyer and did not want a lawyer, the investigator must still take steps to provide a lawyer for Mr. Dam. The fact that the investigator conducted the interrogation without providing a lawyer is improper under Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code.