Court delays bail hearing in Saudi murder case
The Criminal Court yesterday postponed to next week a hearing on the Department of Special Investigation's request for bail revocation against two suspects in the case of the abduction and murder of a Saudi businessman.
Deputy Chief Justice Jumpol Chuwong of the Criminal Court, who chaired yesterday’s hearing, ordered DSI chief Tarit Pengdith to submit a copy of his evidence to back up his request to the court before the hearing continues next Monday.
Tarit asked the Criminal Court to revoke the bail of Pol Lt-General Somkid Bunthanom and Pol Lt-Colonel Suradej Udomdee. The two were accused of collaborating to abduct and murder Mohammad al-Ruwaili, a Saudi businessman close to the Saudi royal family.
Tarit testified to the court that Somkid, former head of police inspectors-general, and Suradej collaborated to abuse their influence to tamper with evidence in the case and to intimidate a key witness, Pol Lt-General Suwichai Kaewpaluk.
Tarit told the court that alleged intimidation by the two suspects prompted Suwichai to seek protection under the Justice Ministry’s witness protection programme.
Tarit said the two suspects also used their influence in the office of the police inspectors-general to seek information on Suwichai’s whereabouts.
Tarit also told the court the Saudi government had expressed concern to the Thai foreign minister that the two suspects attempted to discredit witness’ information by holding press conferences to talk about the case.
At this point, the chairing judge told Tarit he needed to send a copy of his statement to the court first for the defence witness to cross-examine him.
Speaking to reporters, Tarit said that although the Constitution Court ruled that Suwichai’s testimony given recently while he was in the United Arab Emirates could not be used in court, the prosecutors could later present his testimony via a video conference.
The Constitution Court recently ruled 5-4 that the provision in Foreign Cooperation in Criminology 1992, which stipulates that evidence derived from investigations in foreign countries is 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.
