A Quorum of Judges in the Court of Justice: Cases of Constituting a Bench Exceeding the Statutory Minimum Requirement

Abstract

The constitution of a judicial bench must comply with the criteria prescribed by law, whereby the law stipulates the minimum requirement regarding the number of judges necessary to constitute a bench for the trial and adjudication of each case. Within the Court of Justice, the primary legislation to be applied in considering such criteria is the "Law on the Organization of Courts of Justice" (Phra Thammanun San Yutitham). Nevertheless, a legal issue arises in instances where cases are assigned and a judicial bench is constituted with a number of judges exceeding the minimum requirement prescribed by law. In such instances, the question is whether the trial and adjudication of the case must be conducted by a bench consisting of the number of judges as constituted in excess of the minimum requirement, or whether the minimum number of judges as prescribed by law may be utilized. Regarding this issue, there is a line of Supreme Court judgments and a segment of academic opinion suggesting that even if a judicial bench is constituted with a number of judges exceeding the minimum criteria prescribed by law, if the trial and adjudication are conducted by a judicial bench that fulfills the minimum number required by law, the proceedings remain lawful, notwithstanding that the bench is not composed of the full number of judges as constituted by the person in charge of court administration. The reasoning provided is that the trial and adjudication are conducted by a bench that meets the minimum criteria as prescribed by law, regardless of the fact that it is not complete according to the bench constituted by the person in charge of court administration. The author is of the view that, regarding the aforementioned issue, once the person in charge of court administration has constituted a judicial bench exceeding the minimum number prescribed by law, the trial and adjudication of the case must be composed of the bench according to that specified number which exceeds the minimum criteria. In this instance, it is no longer permissible to revert to claiming the use of the minimum number of judges prescribed by law for the trial and adjudication. Consequently, it must be deemed that the trial and adjudication were conducted by an incomplete bench, which results in such proceedings being unlawful.