Criminal Law in Thailand Part 32: The criminal trial, how it is

Moderator3

SITE ADMINISTRATOR
Staff member
Criminal Law in Thailand Part 32: The criminal trial, how it is
conducted


  • Published: 12/12/2010 at 12:00 AM
  • Newspaper section: Spectrum













We've talked earlier about the players and the kind of
proof that is required to be introduced in a criminal trial. Now we will give
you an overview of some of the principal steps in a criminal trial.


212251.jpg



As discussed earlier, most criminal cases are initiated by the public
prosecutor. We'll discuss this in depth next time, because how this happens goes
to the heart of the criminal process in Thailand.


The trial starts when the accused is brought to court to be charged with the
crime by the public prosecutor. The judge may at this time have a preliminary
examination of the case, but, as a practical matter, usually just rules on
whether the charge conforms to the law. If the judge accepts the charge, he or
she may ask the accused to give a statement and, with the public prosecutor and
defence, set a date for trial.


At the time appointed for the trial to begin, the prosecutor, judge or judges
and the defendant and his or her lawyer meet in the courtroom. The judge or
judges sit facing the public prosecutor, the defendant and his or her lawyers,
who sit at separate tables.


The public sits behind the tables occupied by the parties. Normally, the
public is allowed to attend criminal trials, but the judge may on his or her
own, or at the request of either of the parties, close the trial to the public
if he or she thinks doing so would be in the interest of public order, good
morals, or state security. An example of when a judge might close a trial to the
public is where the victim of a sex crime is a child and the judge doesn't wish
the child to be exposed to negative publicity as a result of the trial.


If a member of the public, including the press, wants to record, photograph
or video any portion of the trial, he or she must apply in a letter to the chief
judge of the court, giving the case number, date and the reason for the
recording. Without prior permission, recording, photographing or videoing any
portion of a trial is considered in contempt of court and will expose the person
doing it to punishment.


The judge announces the beginning of the trial. The judge makes a recording
of the entire trial and a clerk enters all testimony into a computer. The exact
method of recording the trial is set by regulations made by the Chief Judge of
the Supreme Court.


The first formal statement is made by the prosecutor. Generally, he or she
will start with a statement of the facts and law on which he or she intends to
rely. Then the factual evidence, discussed in earlier columns, from witnesses
and physical evidence such as fingerprints, documents, weapons, contraband and
photographs, is introduced.


Generally, the judge has discretion to admit any evidence likely to prove the
guilt or innocence of the accused. The court may require expert testimony on any
fact that constitutes a substantial issue in the case. Likewise, the parties may
introduce expert testimony on substantial issues.


Documents may be presented as evidence. Copies of official documents such as
government records certified by government officials are acceptable. Otherwise,
if the original of the document to be presented is not available, a certified
copy or oral evidence of what was in the document will be admissible.


Evidence introduced by the prosecution may be questioned by the defence.
Witnesses may be cross-examined after they have given testimony for the party
who asked them to appear. For example, the prosecution might introduce a witness
who says he witnessed the crime. When the prosecution has finished questioning
this witness, the defence might then confront that person about evidence to the
effect that he was out of the country at the time of the crime and couldn't
possibly have witnessed it. As will be explained later, it is the judge who will
eventually decide who to believe.


Parties may object to the introduction of evidence by their opponents. We
will cover what can be introduced and what can be objected to later, but suffice
to say here that the judge has discretion on what to accept or reject as
evidence.


If the judge excludes something, he or she must explain this in the written
record of the trial so that, if necessary, it may be evaluated by other judges
if the case is appealed.


Then the defence may put on its case, first with a statement, then with
witnesses and other evidence, just as with the prosecution. The same rules
mentioned above apply and the prosecution may cross-examine witnesses and object
to evidence.


Next time we'll begin a discussion of important points along the road of the
trial and how it's all resolved.
 
Back
Top