Prosecution of Conspiracy to Commit Murder and Witness Examination
Article 2 – Arrest
In violation of the offense of conspiracy to commit murder of Mr. Somsak, the owner of the manufacturing plant, and in relation to Mr. Somchart, who was charged and prosecuted by the Court of Criminal Justice, Bangkok Region, Southern District, Mr. Somsak was a co-conspirator of Mr. Somchart and a principal participant in the use of the conspiracy to murder Mr. Somsak. The investigation proceeded as follows:
The Office of the Attorney General, Special Division for Criminal Cases, Bangkok Region, Southern District, led by Ms. Yeenam, requested the issuance of an arrest warrant for Mr. John, an American national and an employee of Mr. Somchart. Mr. John was allegedly stating that he was preparing to return to the United States of America due to fear of harm and would not return to Thailand. The court subsequently issued an order permitting his return. During the examination of Mr. John as a witness, Mr. Somphot, an associate of Mr. Somchart, was present to challenge Mr. John’s testimony. Prior to the examination of Mr. John, the Attorney General had examined Mr. John as a witness.
The Attorney General issued an indictment against Mr. Somchart and Mr. Somhav, as follows:
The court may receive the testimony of Mr. John, if it can determine whether the case against Mr. Somchart and Mr. Somhav can be decided. If there is reasonable evidence that the witness will travel elsewhere or that there is reasonable grounds to believe that the witness will be interfered with, either directly or indirectly, or by any other means, then [text incomplete – OCR UNCLEAR]
The court may, pursuant to Section 237(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, order the investigation of the witness before issuing a ruling.
Regarding Mr. Somchart, due to Section 237(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that if the perpetrator is known and is under the authority of an investigative officer, or if the Attorney General requests that the perpetrator be brought before the court if he is under the authority of a court, then the court shall summon the perpetrator to appear and consider the case. In the case where the perpetrator is known and is under the authority of a court, when the witness is investigated before, if the court does not summon Mr. Somchart to participate in the investigation, it cannot determine the case against Mr. Somchart and Mr. Somhav.
Regarding Mr. Somhav, this is a case where the perpetrator is known, but not apprehended. He is under the authority of the investigating officers, the Attorney General, or the court. Therefore, Mr. Somhav attended the examination of the witness. When the court examines the witness in accordance with Section 237(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is sufficient.