Bangkok Legal Service

On February 1, 2007, police officers arrested Mr. Ek and Mr. Toe together for assaulting Mr. Tree, who was within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court of Bangkok Noi. Mr. Toe subsequently fled and was apprehended by police at Bangkhe police station. Mr. Ek was taken to Bangkhe police station to pursue criminal charges. Mr. Ek denied the charges. On February 1, 2007, the investigating officer brought Mr. Ek before the Provincial Court of Bangkok Noi to request a delay in prosecution, specifying a request for postponement and detention for a period of 6 to 9 February 2007. Mr. Ek did not dispute the prosecution s request. The court authorized the postponement and detention as requested, detaining Mr. Ek at Bangkhe police station. On February 2, 2007, the prosecutor filed charges against Mr. Toe for other offenses at the Provincial Court of Bangkok Noi. Mr. Toe denied the charges. The court then scheduled a hearing for the case and authorized Mr. Toe s temporary release on April 1, 2007, effective from the date of the charge. Subsequently, on February 4, 2007, Mr. Toe visited Mr. Ek at Bangkhe police station, Bangkok Noi, without bringing Mr. Toe to the prosecutor. The prosecutor then filed charges against Mr. Toe for other offenses at this court. During the trial, Mr. Ek contested that the prosecutor lacked the authority to prosecute because the postponement was not requested. Mr. Toe contended that the prosecutor lacked the authority to prosecute because the postponement was not requested. The court s ruling on Mr. Ek and Mr. Toe s arguments is as follows: Mr. Ek s argument is accepted because the request for postponement of Mr. Ek s investigation must be made before the 48-hour deadline. Mr. Ek was arrested at 20:00 on February 1, 2007, and the 48-hour period expired on February 3, 2007, at 20:00. Therefore, the prosecution s postponement of Mr. Ek on February 3, 2007, was justified. However, the deadline for the postponement must begin immediately upon the first request for postponement to allow the 48-hour period to expire. Since the postponement was continuous, the deadline for Mr. Ek s postponement on February 3, 2007, and the six-day period ending on February 8, 2007, the court s authorization for postponement until February 9, 2007, was a mistaken calculation. The prosecutor must be prohibited from prosecuting Mr. Ek on February 9, 2007, as that is the deadline for the postponement without the approval of the Attorney General, according to the Royal Decree Establishing Provincial Courts and the Procedure for Criminal Proceedings in Provincial Courts, B.E. 2499 (1956), Sections 7 and 9 (3 points). Mr. Toe s argument is not accepted because the police officer s notification of charges and questioning of Mr. Toe in this case, without a warrant, does not constitute an arrest, and therefore, a postponement is not required. Mr. Toe must be apprehended according to the Royal Decree Establishing Provincial Courts, Law and Procedure for Criminal Proceedings in Provincial Courts, B.E. 2499, Section 7 (2 points). Furthermore, the prosecutor s charges against Mr. Toe without bringing Mr. Toe before the Provincial Court of Bangkok Noi is invalid, given that Mr. Toe was already charged with other offenses at that court, even with temporary release permission, he was subject to the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court of Bangkok Noi. Therefore, the prosecutor did not need to bring Mr. Toe before the court when filing the charges in this case, according to the Royal Decree Establishing Provincial Courts and the Procedure for Criminal Proceedings in Provincial Courts, B.E. 2499, Section 4 (3 points). Mr. Ek, age 17, residing in Bangkok, drove a vehicle recklessly and caused the death of another person in Phathalung Province. Police arrested Mr. Ek at the scene and charged him with reckless driving causing death, a crime punishable by imprisonment of up to 10 years. Phathalung Province lacked a juvenile court and family court, and both were located in Bangkok and Songkhla. The investigating officer must transfer Mr. Ek to the Bangkok Juvenile and Family Court for questioning and within 24 hours of his arrest, as Mr. Ek s residence is Bangkok, according to the Royal Decree Establishing Juvenile and Family Courts and the Procedure for Juvenile and Family Court Proceedings, B.E. 2534, Section 50. Having a registered address in Songkhla does not constitute a residence in Songkhla. The competent court for hearing the case is the Bangkok Juvenile and Family Court, according to the Royal Decree Establishing Juvenile and Family Courts and the Procedure for Juvenile and Family Court Proceedings, B.E. 2534, Section 58 (2 points). The investigating officer must forward the case file to the Juvenile and Family Court Prosecutor s Office of the Attorney General s Office in Bangkok for prosecution within 90 days, for a sentence of imprisonment of more than 5 years, according to the Royal Decree Establishing Juvenile and Family Courts and the Procedure for Juvenile and Family Court Proceedings, B.E. 2534 (4 points).