Roles of the Public Prosecutor and Scrutiny in Justice Proceedings: Specific Case Study of Criminal Proceedings against Holders of Political Positions

Abstract

The objectives of this research are to: 1) study concepts, purposes and criteria of criminal proceedings against holders of political positions; 2) study concepts, purposes and principles of the public prosecutors' decisions on cases in Thailand and foreign countries; 3) study and analyze nature of problems with preparation of case files between the Attorney General and the National Anti-Corruption Commission; 4) amend legal provisions on the Attorney General in order that criminal cases against holders of political positions, shall be efficient. This research is qualitative research conducted by a method of documentary research, which the author gathered from books both in Thai language and English language, information from text books and commentaries, remarks on the Supreme Court's decisions in criminal proceedings against holders of political positions, articles in Thai language and English language and relevant research papers. Results of the research show that: 1) when the National Anti-Corruption Commission submits an inquiry file, the Attorney General must prosecute the case to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division of Holders of Political Positions, which is the legal basis for conducting the proceedings; 2) the international recognized standards of criminal proceedings conducted by the Public Prosecutor and criminal proceedings in Thailand are the principle of criminal proceedings where the public prosecutor has a discretion to scrutinize the criminal case, before it is lodged to the Court; 3) In principle, the law requires the Attorney General to prosecute criminal proceedings against a holder of a political position, but the Attorney General is not authorized to investigate or exercise discretion in issuing orders on the case; and 4) the author, thus, recommends that an amendment should be made to a Parliamentary Act, by involving the Attorney General in inquiry with the National Anti-Corruption Commission from the beginning, and authorizing the Attorney General to exercise discretion in considering for issuing orders on the case in accordance with proper offenses, whereas the National Anti-Corruption Commission carries out the duty of investigation with the Attorney General as a system of check and balance.