The Constitutional Court’s Order on the Constitutionality of Closed-Door Trial: The case of Da Torpedo

Here is the gist of the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the constitutionality of Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Previously, Da Torpedo’s attorney challenged in the Lower Court (Criminal Court) that the holding of her trial on lèse majesté charges in closed doors is in breach of Section 29 and Section 40(2) of the 2007 Constitution (concerning the rights to fair trial).

“Holding a trial in closed doors may not always render unfairness to either of the two parties in the judicial procedure. And it may not lead to restriction of the rights of a defendant in a criminal case since if a trial is held in closed doors by the virtue of Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code, presence of individuals concerned with the trial is allowed in the Court room including the plaintiff and his/her attorney, the defendant and his/her attorney, custodian of the defendant, expert witness and interpreter, etc.

It is deemed by the Court that Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for basic right in trial as upheld in the Constitution. Though its application may result in some restriction of an individual’s rights and liberties, but the restriction is only made as necessary and does not journalize the matter of substance of such rights and liberties. In addition, the Section (177) is intended for general uses, not for any particular cases, or for particular individuals, the (Constitutional) Court thus rules that it does not violate or is in breach of either Section 29 or 40 (2) of the Constitution.”

Note: Section 177: “The Court may…issue an order that the trial be held within closed doors provided that it is in the interest of public order or good morals or in order to prevent secrets concerning the security of the state from being disclosed to public.”

Another intriguing thing to note is the Constitutional Court’s order read out in the Criminal Court on 17 October 2011 has been uploaded and made publicly available in the CC’s website since 11 May 2011 (http://www.constitutionalcourt.or.th/index.php?option=com_docman&task=ca...). 

Comments

“Holding a trial in closed

“Holding a trial in closed doors may not always render unfairness to either of the two parties in the judicial procedure. And it may not lead to restriction of the rights of a defendant in a criminal case since if a trial is held in closed doors by the virtue of Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code, presence of individuals concerned with the trial is allowed in the Court room including the plaintiff and his/her attorney, the defendant and his/her attorney, custodian of the defendant, expert witness and interpreter, etc."

See the words "may not always render unfairness to..." (line 1) and "it may not lead to restriction of the rights of a defendant in a criminal case" (line 2)?

And here was me thinking it is the job of the judiciary to guarantee fair and impartial justice. Silly me...

Its a fuck-up and a stitch-up. Same as most things in Amazing Thailand. The sooner these people are thrown out on their obnoxious asses the better. Starting with the guy at the top, from whom all these 'blessings' flow.

What part of

What part of

Section 40.

A person shall have the following rights in the administration of justice:
...
2. 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;
...

is not violated by Darunee's secret trial(s)?

The whole LM thing and trials

The whole LM thing and trials behind closed doors and pointing to national security and so forth bring to mind two words: SHAM and SCAM.

Beside that once any lawyers or witnesses leave the court room they are unable to speak also and even if they did, the MSM is so under the control of those in power they would not get many listeners. And if they would tell the truth they would risk being charged and imprisoned themselves.

Suggesting therefore that proceedings behind closed doors are acceptable because of the presence of those mentioned above is ludicrous.