Unreasonable Assertion of Attorney-Client Privilege in Criminal Interrogation
Mr. Chai was prosecuted by the investigating officers on charges of theft during the investigative phase. Mr. Chai admitted to the charges he stated to the defendant regarding the aforementioned offenses. Mr. Chai denied the charges in court. During the proceedings, Mr. Chai submitted a petition to the court stating that during his interrogation, he had the right to have an attorney present to listen to his questioning, but the officers invited him to confess in the investigative phase. The attorney attended the questioning. The actions of the investigating officers constituted a violation of Article 241, Paragraph 2 of the Royal Constitution concerning the right to an attorney and the coercion to admit evidence obtained improperly, and the provisions of Section 120 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which the prosecutor relied upon to prosecute Mr. Chai pursuant to the Royal Constitution of Thailand, B.E. 2540. Therefore, the court requests that the Constitutional Court examine the following:
The court should issue an order regarding the following matters:
Answer: The assertion by Mr. Chai that the investigating officers interrogated him without his attorney present and coerced him into confessing during the investigative phase is unreasonable under the law. This assertion does not meet the criteria stipulated in Section 264 of the Royal Constitution of Thailand, B.E. 2540, because it did not argue that the provisions of the Constitution were contradictory or conflicting with the provisions of the Constitution, nor were they applicable under the Royal Constitution of Thailand, B.E. 2540, Section 6. Instead, it argued that the actions were unlawful (5 points). The assertion that Article 5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure Act is in conflict with the provisions of the Royal Constitution of Thailand, B.E. 2540, is a baseless claim, providing no factual basis that it contradicts or conflicts with Article 2540 of the Constitution, and for what reason or in what manner. Therefore, the court should reject Mr. Chai’s petition (5 points).