Legal Issues Regarding the Case of Repeated Detention of Suspects

Abstract

This research consists purposes were 1. to examine concepts related to state custody of individuals, the protection of suspects or persons who are detained or imprisoned, the attachment or detention of suspects, as well as the principles of the rule of law, the rule of justice, and the practical guidelines of the administrative authorities under Thai law 2. to compare legal measures concerning the state’s power to hold individuals, the criteria for the court’s issuance of arrest warrants, the detention of suspects, and the administrative practice guidelines under Thai law with those under the laws of foreign jurisdictions, namely the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Japan 3. to analyze legal issues concerning repeated or successive detention of suspects and 4. to propose recommendations for improving the law and proper practices regarding the detention of suspects and the conduct of criminal proceedings against suspects who are already incarcerated in other cases. This is a qualitative research study employing documentary research methods. Sources include legal textbooks, scholarly articles, academic works, research studies, court judgments, and statutory provisions of both Thai and foreign laws, as well as reliable online resources. The collected data from these various documents are then analyzed through content analysis. The study found that 1) Royal Thai Police Order No. 419/2556 is the practice guideline for repeated arrests by investigators 2) Comparing the law on repeated arrests in Thailand, which relies on Royal Thai Police Order No. 419/2556, investigators must first request an arrest warrant from the court and then notify the prison of the arrest. In practice, repeated arrests and delays have occurred, affecting the rights of the accused. In the French Republic, Article 66 of the 1958 Constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest or detention. The issuance of arrest warrants and detention must be under the authority of the investigating judge and always subject to judicial scrutiny. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the principle of Verwaltungsanweisung is used as an internal regulation to guide officials in the systematic exercise of their power. Detention must be reviewed and authorized by the court. Meanwhile, in Japan, arrest and detention must be under the court's warrant system and must be justified, such as to prevent escape or destruction of evidence. This makes the arrest of suspects subject to strict judicial scrutiny 3) Repeat arrests in Thailand also create problems in cases where suspects or defendants with multiple cases are detained repeatedly after the Department of Corrections issues a release warrant, resulting in the loss of their right to release. This is inconsistent with human rights principles and the rule of law and 4) The researcher recommends that the Royal Thai Police Order No. 419/2556 on the Administration of Justice in Criminal Cases regarding the preparation of investigation files and the use of measures to control, inspect and expedite criminal investigations be repealed, specifically Section 4.4 on the investigation of cases in which suspects are detained in other cases (arrested suspects). This is to prevent rights violations and elevate the standards of the Thai justice system to be in line with the rule of law and international standards.