Defendant’s Failure to Request Postponement and Related Procedural Issues
Article 5. On January 4, 2002, at 13:00 hours, Mr. was arrested by police officers from Huamak Police Station on charges of jointly engaging in gambling and taking property from others without authorization. He was then handed over to investigating officers and released on bail. Mr. was detained by the investigating officers pursuant to the authority of the investigating officers. Subsequently, on January 6, 2002, at 14:00 hours, the defendant’s guarantor submitted Mr. to the investigating officers for further questioning. Both Mr. and Mr. , the two defendants, admitted their guilt and gave testimony. They were then forwarded to the Office of the Public Prosecutor to make a verbal statement of charges. It was revealed that while the Office of the Public Prosecutor presented Mr. and to the court with a verbal statement of charges, both Mr. and Mr. absconded. Thereafter, the investigating officers apprehended Mr. and Mr. . At 11:00 hours, they were handed over to the Office of the Public Prosecutor to make a verbal statement of charges at 11:30 hours. The Office of the Public Prosecutor formally charged Mr. and Mr. as defendants. Both defendants admitted their guilt. The Provincial Court considered the case, which spanned over 48 hours since the defendants were apprehended without a request for a postponement of the proceedings, and ruled that the defendants failed to file a request for a postponement of proceedings within the stipulated timeframe as per the law. The validity of the Provincial Court’s judgment is questioned. Specifically:
Mr. was released on bail with a guarantee in the investigative officer’s office. This does not invalidate the claim that Mr. absconded from the control or detention as stipulated in Section 7(2) of the Provincial Court Establishment Act B.E. 2499 (1956), as it does not account for the time and procedures within the Criminal Procedure Court, Judicial Office, Act B.E. 2485 (1952). The defendant’s request for a postponement of proceedings within the 48-hour period from the time the charges were filed was not granted by the Public Prosecutor as stipulated in Section .
The Provincial Court’s judgment regarding Mr. is valid, due to .
The Provincial Court’s judgment regarding Mr. is invalid, due to .