Discretion and the Control of Discretion in the Imposition of Regulatory Fines by State Officials

Abstract

          This academic article aims to study the principles of the Act on Imposition of Pinai Regulatory Fines, B.E. 2565 (2022), which was enacted as a central law to consider setting fines for offenses that require the payment of penal fines by law, allowing offenders to pay the fines to end the case at the government officials’ level. However, for this Act to achieve its objectives, it requires clear criteria and practices, as well as formats and understanding of government officials. Therefore, setting rules that regulate government officials to comply is essential to support the work. The study is conducted in conjunction with applicable laws for minor offenses in other countries, as well as research, articles, theses, and reports of various academic conferences.

            The study found that the provision for government officials to exercise discretion in considering the imposition of penal fines based on the supervision criteria as stipulated in Section 9 of the Act on Imposition of Pinai Regulatory Fines, B.E. 2565 (2022), together with Sections 6 and 8 of the Prime Minister’s Regulations on the Procedures for Penal Fines B.E. 2566, appears to be a broad control of discretion. This may result in government officials lacking specific/ more defined criteria to use as guidelines for consideration, leading to freedom of discretion. The unity of law enforcement is then questioned. Moreover, the imposition of a fine also affects the rights and freedoms of the person who is ordered, which is subject to the protection of the rights and freedoms of the people, which is the basic principle of the rule of law. Therefore, the exercise of discretion in imposing a fine is an exercise of public power that may affect the rights of individuals, which must be controlled and inspected/checked.