Supreme Court Decisions
Criminal Cases – Arrest and Search Warrants Decisions
Can the Court Read an Appellate Judgment to the Prosecution Alone If the Defendant Fails to Appear?
Supreme Court Judgment No. 276/2504
Summary of the Judgment:
Where a warrant has been issued for the defendant to appear and hear the judgment, but the defendant fails to appear, the period for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court begins to run from the date the appellate judgment is lawfully read. There is no requirement to wait until the defendant personally appears to hear the judgment. This directly affects the defendant’s right to appeal and the finality of the criminal proceedings. If the defendant files an appeal more than one month after the date on which the judgment was read, the appeal is out of time. The defendant’s later appearance before the court does not extend or restart the appeal period.
Interesting Article
In this case, a warrant was issued requiring the defendant to appear and hear the judgment of the Court of Appeal. More than one month passed without the defendant being brought before the court. The court therefore read the appellate judgment to the prosecution in the defendant’s absence.The Supreme Court held that the judgment had been lawfully read. Accordingly, the period for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court began to run from that date.The defendant later filed an appeal more than one month after the judgment had been read. The appeal was therefore filed out of time.Although the defendant was eventually brought before the court more than five months later and the judgment was read to him personally, that later reading merely served to inform him of the judgment. It did not extend or restart the statutory period for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Wrongful Arrest Warrant Issued on Insufficient Evidence
Supreme Court Judgment No. 15591/2557
Summary of the Judgment:
Requesting a court to issue an arrest warrant against a person is a serious measure affecting individual rights and liberty. State officials, particularly investigating officers, must therefore exercise a high degree of care when gathering evidence and must properly verify the identity of the suspected offender before applying for an arrest warrant. If they act negligently and cause the wrong person to be arrested, such conduct may give rise to liability in tort.
Interesting Article
In this case, the injured party and witnesses stated that the offender was known as “Mr. Sing” and further claimed that his real name was “Mr. Thotsaphon,” which was the same name as the plaintiff in the subsequent tort action.However, the witnesses also stated that the offender was domiciled in Nakhon Phanom Province, while official civil registration records clearly showed that the plaintiff had continuously lived in Bangkok. Photographs identifying the plaintiff were also available. Despite this inconsistency, the investigating officer failed to make further inquiries and did not arrange for the injured party or witnesses to identify the plaintiff from photographs.This failure resulted in the court issuing an arrest warrant against the wrong person. The plaintiff was arrested, transferred for proceedings in another jurisdiction, and unnecessarily detained before the injured party later confirmed that he was not the offender.The Supreme Court held that the investigating officer had acted negligently in the performance of official duties, thereby committing a tort against the plaintiff. The Royal Thai Police, as the responsible government agency, was therefore liable to compensate the plaintiff under the Act on Liability for Wrongful Acts of Officials B.E. 2539.The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and reinstated the judgment of the Court of First Instance, ordering the defendant to pay THB 201,500 in damages together with interest.