Bangkok Legal Service

Mr. Kaj and three other individuals conspired to plot the murder of Sergeant Sabot and the theft of a shotgun from Sergeant Kla, who was a police officer and instructed to maintain order among the villagers for the benefit of Mr. Kaj and his associates. The aforementioned planning involved Mr. Sot and Police Sergeant Keng, a police officer in the locality, who observed the plan, but fearing for his own safety, did not report the incident to anyone. Subsequently, after Mr. Kaj learned of the planned actions, he did not carry out the plan as originally devised. It is to be determined whether Mr. Kaj, Mr. Sot, and Police Sergeant Keng are liable for any offense, and if so, the reasons thereof. The planning by Mr. Kaj and his associates constituted a plan to endanger the life of Sergeant Kla, and, with the intent to instill fear among the public, was a preparation for the commission of an act of terrorism. Even if the plan was not carried out, it constitutes a joint offense under Section 2 (2) of the Criminal Code, together with Section 83 (3). Police Sergeant Keng, as a police officer, has a duty to investigate and maintain the order of the public, and upon discovering a crime, he failed to arrest the perpetrator. To arrest the perpetrator in the performance of his duties as a police officer is not improper and causes damage to the government.

a. Police Sergeant Keng is liable for being a public official who failed to perform his duty improperly to the detriment of another person under Section 24 of the Criminal Code. Furthermore, when Police Sergeant Keng knew of the impending act of terrorism and remained silent, this is tantamount to concealing it, as Police Sergeant Keng had a duty to prevent such incidents in his capacity as a police officer. His inaction constitutes an omission of an act of a criminal offense, namely, knowingly assisting in the concealment of a perpetrator of terrorism under Section 135/2/2 of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Sot, as a citizen, has no duty to act against a public official simply by remaining silent. Therefore, his silence does not constitute an act of omission.