Uproar over ruling on evidence from overseas
The Constitution Court's decision to reject witness examinations in foreign countries has caused an uproar in the justice system and courts across the country that have adopted the practice for many decades.
The senior court recently ruled 5-4 that the provision in Foreign Cooperation in Criminology 1992, which stipulates that evidence derived from investigations in foreign countries was acceptable, clashed with the Constitution.
The court said the provision violated legal principles as it limited the rights of defendants in criminal cases since they had no chance to examine or contest the evidence.
They also lacked legal assistance from lawyers on evidence and testimonies derived from abroad. As a result, defendants were deprived of chances to fight the case in a fair manner. Besides, one of legal principles was that criminal investigation should be carried out in the presence of the defendants.
The provision therefore transgresses Articles 3 and 29, the court said. Criminal Court chief justice Thawee Prachuablap said Thai courts had allowed witness examination conducted abroad, even before the act went into effect by taking recourse in Article 34 of the Civil Procedures. “A number of cases and many courts across the country will be adversely affected by the Constitution Court ruling because these courts must follow the top court’s decision. Most witness examinations abroad are investigations of prime witnesses. Since the court has arrived with this decision, all witness examinations done in foreign countries are no longer valid, affecting all trials involving foreign witness examination,” he said.
Thawee said he would call a meeting of criminal court judges and court management officials to decide on guidelines and practices as a result of the top court’s decision. However he did not rule out the possibility that the Constitution Court would review its decision if a complaint was filed seeking a revision. He said that because the ruling was a 5-4 decision, it was likely the judges may change to the decision, especially if there was a change in the court panel.
The court issued the ruling after Pol Lt-General Somkid Bunthanom, a defendant in the murder of Mohammad al-Ruwaili filed a complaint with the court that the witness examination out by prosecutors on Pol Lt General Suwichai Kaewpaluk in the UAE was unconstitutional and the prosecutors could not use his testimony as evidence in court. Al-Ruwaili was a Saudi businessman close to the Saudi royal family abducted and killed after travelling to Bangkok to investigate the Blue Diamond theft.
