D
Dave The Dude
Guest
CRIMINAL LAW IN THAILAND Part 65: Crime prevention I
Over the past few weeks, we've talked about citizens' arrests _ when civilians see a crime being committed and apprehend the perpetrator themselves.
What if you're walking down the street and you see a young tough speaking threateningly to an older lady who is running a food stand?
You realise he's threatening to hurt her if she doesn't give him money. Are you legally authorised to step in and stop the crime? Could you act in her defence, perhaps telling the guy to get lost and shoving him away if he persists?
What we're talking about here is crime prevention. It's where you encounter a crime and want to stop it, not arrest the perpetrator. Usually doing this involves protecting oneself or others from a threatened crime. The rules are the same whether you're protecting yourself or others. Also, all of the rules below apply to both Thais or foreigners.
Under Section 68 of the Criminal Code, whether you may act to prevent a crime, committed either against yourself or others depends on four factors.
The first and perhaps most important factor is that the danger that may be prevented by your intervention must arise out of what is called "violence tortious to the law". This means any offence against life, body, liberty, reputation or property of another person for which the offender is not otherwise allowed by law to do. It does not necessarily mean violence has to be involved. For example, you would have the right under Section 68 to intervene and stop someone from:
Shoplifting, because this would be an offence against the property interests of another.
Battery (punching someone in the nose without any provocation, for example) because it's an offence against the body of another.
Kidnapping, because this would be an offence against the liberty of another.
Here's an example. You're waiting on the skytrain platform. A hoodlum pulls out a knife and demands that an older lady hand over her purse. You shove him away and tell him to move on. You would be justified in doing this because the threat against a property interest.
But let's look at another example. Let's say you're again waiting for the skytrain and you happen to notice a man speaking harshly to a woman. He grabs a package from her and walks quickly away. You run over, wrestle the package away from him and give it back to the woman. In the scuffle you break his finger.
It turns out that this time you were mistaken in thinking that the package belonged to the woman. In fact, it contained the man's watch. She is his wife, and had forgotten to take it to be fixed. He was angry with her for forgetting to do this and was, when you came upon the scene, just going to do this himself.
In this case you may be guilty of a crime yourself.
Why? Because Section 62 of the code says that if someone commits a crime because of a mistake of fact, and if the mistake is as a result of the person's negligence, that person can be held guilty of a resulting crime. Thus if all of this went to court, and a judge decided that your mistake in thinking that you were preventing a robbery was negligent, the judge might hold you responsible for the injury you did. Under Section 390 of the code, you could be guilty of a crime and face a small fine and imprisonment. Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand might make you liable for civil damages for your negligence. This means you might have to pay the man with the malfunctioning watch for breaking his finger.
We'll discuss further examples and the remaining three factors next week.
- Published: 30/10/2011 at 12:00 AM
- Newspaper section: Spectrum
Over the past few weeks, we've talked about citizens' arrests _ when civilians see a crime being committed and apprehend the perpetrator themselves.
What if you're walking down the street and you see a young tough speaking threateningly to an older lady who is running a food stand?
You realise he's threatening to hurt her if she doesn't give him money. Are you legally authorised to step in and stop the crime? Could you act in her defence, perhaps telling the guy to get lost and shoving him away if he persists?
What we're talking about here is crime prevention. It's where you encounter a crime and want to stop it, not arrest the perpetrator. Usually doing this involves protecting oneself or others from a threatened crime. The rules are the same whether you're protecting yourself or others. Also, all of the rules below apply to both Thais or foreigners.
Under Section 68 of the Criminal Code, whether you may act to prevent a crime, committed either against yourself or others depends on four factors.
The first and perhaps most important factor is that the danger that may be prevented by your intervention must arise out of what is called "violence tortious to the law". This means any offence against life, body, liberty, reputation or property of another person for which the offender is not otherwise allowed by law to do. It does not necessarily mean violence has to be involved. For example, you would have the right under Section 68 to intervene and stop someone from:
Shoplifting, because this would be an offence against the property interests of another.
Battery (punching someone in the nose without any provocation, for example) because it's an offence against the body of another.
Kidnapping, because this would be an offence against the liberty of another.
Here's an example. You're waiting on the skytrain platform. A hoodlum pulls out a knife and demands that an older lady hand over her purse. You shove him away and tell him to move on. You would be justified in doing this because the threat against a property interest.
But let's look at another example. Let's say you're again waiting for the skytrain and you happen to notice a man speaking harshly to a woman. He grabs a package from her and walks quickly away. You run over, wrestle the package away from him and give it back to the woman. In the scuffle you break his finger.
It turns out that this time you were mistaken in thinking that the package belonged to the woman. In fact, it contained the man's watch. She is his wife, and had forgotten to take it to be fixed. He was angry with her for forgetting to do this and was, when you came upon the scene, just going to do this himself.
In this case you may be guilty of a crime yourself.
Why? Because Section 62 of the code says that if someone commits a crime because of a mistake of fact, and if the mistake is as a result of the person's negligence, that person can be held guilty of a resulting crime. Thus if all of this went to court, and a judge decided that your mistake in thinking that you were preventing a robbery was negligent, the judge might hold you responsible for the injury you did. Under Section 390 of the code, you could be guilty of a crime and face a small fine and imprisonment. Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand might make you liable for civil damages for your negligence. This means you might have to pay the man with the malfunctioning watch for breaking his finger.
We'll discuss further examples and the remaining three factors next week.