Witness Competency and Evidence Admissibility in Criminal Proceedings
The Deed of Title, with Mr. A, a British national, as the injured party, was investigated with Mr. B, a Special Expert Witness of British nationality, appointed by the Prosecutor prior to his departure to England. The Court conducted witness examination as requested by the Prosecutor.
“Today, only Mr. A, the injured party, was present in court. Mr. B, the Special Expert Witness, was able to attend court today; therefore, it was requested that Mr. A be examined alone and that the opinion of Mr. B be presented in lieu of testimony.”
The Court granted the request. Upon completion of Mr. A’s testimony, the Court read the testimony for the record. No further additions were made. Subsequently, the Prosecutor indicted Mr. Red before the Court, and the case was concluded. The defense attorney for the defendant stated before the Court that the witness examination by Mr. B was unlawful under the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 318.
Mr. B was declared an incompetent witness and therefore, the case was dismissed. The Court sentenced Mr. Red to imprisonment for two years, and the opinion of Mr. B was attached to the judgment.
Mr. A’s actions in relation to the proceedings and the reception of evidence conform to the law or not.
Answer: Mr. A and Mr. B, the British witnesses, are residents abroad and will travel outside the Kingdom of Thailand in the future. Therefore, the Court’s examination of both witnesses prior to the Prosecutor’s request constitutes a lawful process under Section 237(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Regarding the Court’s failure to question Mr. A through his attorney, the Court’s obligation to question witnesses in this case must be under Section 237(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, where the defendant is unable to appoint an attorney in time, the Court is not required to question the witness; therefore, the Court did not need to question Mr. A during Mr. A’s testimony. This does not render the witness examination unlawful.
The Court declared Mr. A a competent witness.
Regarding the reception of the opinion of Mr. B, the Special Expert Witness, as evidence, this is in accordance with Section 243(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In cases where a special expert witness provides an opinion in writing, the witness must present that opinion with it; otherwise, the witness cannot be called as a witness. Since the Prosecutor did not present the opinion document and no evidence was found in accordance with the document, the opinion of Mr. B could not be considered.
The charge of theft committed during the daytime.