Finding facts in criminal cases of malfeasance used in the case of tort liability of officials

Abstract

The objectives of this research are to study the background, and principles relating to court hearings in other cases applicable to general cases; study the law on hearing facts of other cases in foreign countries and Thailand; and analyze the feasibility and obtain guidelines of applying the principles relating to court hearings in criminal malfeasance cases applicable to the hearings in tort liability cases of Thai officials. A qualitative research system was used from documents. The study found that principles for finding the facts of the court in other cases was a witness law prohibiting parties from denying facts considered and terminated by the verdict of the court. In order to prevent finding the facts of the same case but different ways. In the context of Thailand, this principle appears in the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 46.  This Code is the principle of civil cases relating to criminal case however, this principle has not yet been applied in criminal cases of corruption and infringement cases. of officers but principles relating to court hearings in other cases in the United States the judicial hearing system of other cases in the United States can be used in administrative cases as well. The condition of such administrative action is an offense of dishonesty, such as an administrative bribe act (Corruption) or malpractice action etc. If such case happens, the administrative courts can take the facts already sentenced the offense by the court of criminal cases. It was used as concluding facts to revoke unlawful acts or dishonesty at that time legally. Therefore, Thailand should adopt the principles of hearing the facts of criminal corruption cases used for the contravention cases of administrative officials. In addition, following the legal precedent of criminal hearings lead to the administrative malpractice cases in force in the United States.