Forensic Handwriting Evidence Admissibility in Criminal Litigation
1d. The Plaintiff alleges a forensic handwriting report prepared by a Special Police Expert who examined the Defendant’s handwriting and provided the report as evidence to the investigating officer as a witness, and delivered testimony in support of the report. The Defendant objected that the Plaintiff did not provide a copy of the report prior to the testimony, and therefore it should not be admitted. The Court will consider to what extent prior testimony of a Special Expert can be heard. It is not permissible to admit copies of official documents as evidence in criminal cases, unless the original is unavailable, and a certified copy is acceptable.
(1) (The Criminal Procedure Code, Section 238) Even the original document in the hands of a party may be admitted as evidence if a certified copy is provided by an official.
(2) Except where otherwise specified in a summons. (The Criminal Procedure Code, Section 238)
When all parties involved have agreed that a copy of the document is accurate:
(3) (The Civil Procedure Code, Section 93(1); The Criminal Procedure Code, Section 15) If bringing the original document would cause damage, create an obstacle, or cause difficulty, an order may be issued requiring a certified copy to stand. (The Civil Procedure Code, Section 122; The Criminal Procedure Code, Section 15)
Copies of public documents certified by an official. (The Civil Procedure Code, Section 127; The Criminal Procedure Code, Section 15)
On October 20, 1974, the Defendant deposited 50,000 Baht and accrued interest from October 20, 1974, into the court to satisfy the Plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff deposited money into the court. The Defendant appealed and objected to the judgment. Subsequently, in November 1974, the Court of First Instance heard the case and issued a ruling. Later, in sequence, the ruling was upheld, but there was no request for a stay of execution. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The Plaintiff and Defendant accepted the judgment on December 25, 1976.
On December 6, 1976, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant had deposited the principal amount and paid the Plaintiff from October 20, 1974, and the Plaintiff therefore requested to receive the full amount. The Plaintiff considered that the accrued interest of 7.5% on a principal of 50,000 Baht from October 20, 1974, remained unpaid, as the Defendant had not yet deposited the money. The Plaintiff therefore requested the court to issue an order compelling the Defendant to pay the outstanding interest. The Court will order the Defendant to pay the outstanding interest to the Plaintiff if it is a court. The Plaintiff’s request is .
Orders the Defendant to pay the outstanding interest as requested by the Plaintiff, because the Defendant’s deposit was made to satisfy the Plaintiff, and during that period, the court did not follow the procedures of the Criminal Procedure Code, it was not a deposit as per the Civil Procedure Code, Section Judgment No. 1162/2523.
The Plaintiff sued the Land Development Division as the Defendant for damages arising from the actions of Mr. Suk.