Court dismisses Da Torpedo’s request for Constitutional Court ruling on whether a secret trial is unconstitutional
On June 25, Daranee Charncherngsilapakul’s lawyer requested the Court to seek a Constitutional Court ruling on whether the Court’s decision to hold the trial in secret is constitutional or not, and temporarily suspend the trial until the Constitutional Court gives its ruling.
The defendant argued that the Court’s decision to hold the trial in secret goes against Section 40(2) of the 2007 Constitution which states that a person shall have, ‘the fundamental rights in legal proceedings, in respect of which fundamental assurances must be accorded as to the openness of trial, adequate opportunities to receive information and examine documents, the submission of facts, arguments and evidence, the challenge of judges, trial by judges of a duly constituted quorum and reasoned decisions, judgments or orders.’
And Section 29 of the Constitution was also cited: ‘The restriction of such rights and liberties as recognised by the Constitution shall not be imposed on a person except by virtue of provisions of the law specifically enacted for the purpose determined by this Constitution and to the extent of necessity and provided that it shall not affect the essential substances of such rights and liberties.
The law under paragraph one shall be of general application and shall not be intended to apply to any particular case or person; provided that the provision of the Constitution authorising its enactment shall also be mentioned therein.
The provisions of paragraph one and paragraph two shall also apply mutatis mutandis to by-laws issued by virtue of provisions of law.’
However, the Court dismissed the request, saying that its decision was not contradictory to Section 211 of the Constitution because the defendant had her lawyer to defend her in court and could submit ‘facts, arguments and evidence’ to the court. Therefore, the trial continues.
On June 24, Daranee told reporters that she could not give comments as the regulations of the Corrections Department forbids detainees to give interviews to reporters without prior permission from the Director-General.
However, she issued a press release, stating that she could not accept the Court’s secret trial and would not ‘accept or respect’ any outcome of the proceeding, and would ‘fight to the end.’
She also submitted a handwritten letter dated June 23 to the Director-General of Criminal Court Judges to complain about the secret trial.
http://www.prachatai.com/journal/2009/06/24851
Print version
Send to friend
Comments
Section 211: The quorum of
Section 211: The quorum of judges of the Constitutional Court for hearing and giving a decision shall consist of not less than nine judges. The decision of the Constitutional Court shall be made by a majority of votes, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution.
Every judge of the Constitutional Court who constitutes a quorum shall give a decision on his own part and make an oral statement to the meeting before passing a resolution.
The decisions of the Constitutional Court and all judges thereof shall be published in the Government Gazette.
Any decision of the Constitutional Court must at least contain the background or allegation, a summary of the facts obtained from the hearings, the reasons for the decision on questions of fact and questions of law and the provisions of the Constitution and the law invoked and resorted to.
The decision of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed final and binding on the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers, the Courts, and other State organs.
The procedure of the Constitutional Court shall be prescribed by the organic law on the Constitutional Court.
So the judges, when challenged to explain why they have seen fit arbitrarily to curtail the "the openness of trial, adequate opportunities to receive information and examine documents, the submission of facts, arguments and evidence" and to cite the "provisions of the law specifically enacted for the purpose" and to justify their "restriction of such rights and liberties as recognized by the Constitution" ignore the questions posed and instead say that what they have arbitrarily done does "not contradict" section 211, which merely outlines the procedures of the court?
And that's the answer? Badges?! We don't need no stinkin' badges!
The arbitrary decision of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed final and binding on the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers, the Courts, and other State organs.
??? I don't understand this
??? I don't understand this post. "So the judges, when challenged to explain why they have seen fit..." What judges, plural? Darunee is being tried by ONE judge. This one judge explained his ruling by referring to Article 211! I'm grateful you posted it, but your post sounds as though you think the Constitutional Court ruled against her. The case is that the ONE judge ruling on her case refused to forward her appeal to the Constitutional Court and gave this bogus reason.
But I do applaud your, "Badges? We don't need no steenkin' badges!" I just wonder how many people recognize the source and why it's so appropriate.
I read the following, and
I read the following, and then the specified Section 211, and thought that it was the Constitutional Court that had denied the request.
However, the Court dismissed the request, saying that its decision was not contradictory to Section 211 of the Constitution because the defendant had her lawyer to defend her in court and could submit ‘facts, arguments and evidence’ to the court. Therefore, the trial continues.
How can an appeal to the Constitutional Court on a ruling by an inferior court be denied by the very inferior court whose ruling is in question?
This one judge seems to hold all judicial power in his hands.
I'd hoped that knowing the source of the quote was unnecessary.
Assuming power without due authority is what the speaker is reveling in, and what the hearer finds revolting. I hope.
Darunee will not get a fair
Darunee will not get a fair trial
The self-proclaimed impartial judge dismissed the request, saying that the court’s “decision was not contradictory to Section 211 of the Constitution because the defendant had her lawyer to defend her in court and could submit ‘facts, arguments and evidence’ to the court. Therefore, the trial continues.”
Is the problem here Prawase's or the court's?
Should the lawyer have appealed directly to the Constitutional Court rather than asking the judge of the inferior court for "permission" to do so?
Or is it "normal" procedure in Thailand for a court whose authority is in question to itself rule on such a question?
And if it is the latter, how can the court be seen as anything other than the arbitrary exerciser of absolute power?