Allow judicial criticism

Allow judicial criticism

When law lecturer-turned-politician Piyabutr Saengkanokkul read out a statement by his Future Forward Party (FFP) on the Constitutional Court's dissolution of the Thai Raksa Chart Party in March, it did not cause him much trouble.

But the matter has emerged as a new legal threat against his political future this week after the police summoned him to acknowledge "insult of court" and computer crime charges filed against him by Col Burin Thongprapai, an officer of the National Council for Peace and Order's Judge Advocate General Office.

With "insult of court" being perceived by some as a new legal ground exploited to threaten politicians like Mr Piyabutr, law enforcement officials must treat the case carefully and take into account universally-accepted legal principles when it comes to considering what criticism of the court is punishable and what is not.

Given that the public still has a mixed understanding of the issue, open debate on principles of relevant laws is critical. Without clear interpretation, laws run the risk of being further abused by individuals or organisations to serve their personal or political gains -- similar to how the lese majeste and sedition laws have been exploited in past years.

There are two sets of relevant laws in Thailand. The first is Section 198 of the Criminal Code which penalises acts that insult the court or the judge in the trial or adjudication of a case, or obstruct a trial or its adjudication. These acts bear a potential penalty of up to seven years in jail, a fine of up to 14,000 baht, or both. Mr Piyabutr is accused of breaching this law.

Another element is defined as "contempt of court" in the Civil and Commercial Code for acts that flout the court's rules or amount to misbehaviour in the precincts of the court in connection with ongoing cases.

With its broad and vague definition, it is understood that "insult of court" under Section 198 refers to offences taking place after the adjudication or proceedings of cases such as scurrilous attacks on courts or judges. In the past decade, there have been less than a dozen cases brought on this ground.

If this is the right interpretation, the FFP statement should not fall under this law. It does not contain defamatory messages that scandalise the court. The statement is an academic view on an overall reflection of the role of the judiciary in politics in past years and on the effects of the dissolution of political parties on the country's democracy. This similar notion has been expressed by many without anyone being jailed.

Moreover, Thailand should strictly reserve insult or contempt of court charges for comments or publications that pose a clear and present danger to ongoing or future court cases which could have undermined, interfered or unfairly influenced the proceedings of the cases. It is a basis for "contempt of court", adopted by countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia to protect due administration of justice.

In fact, constructive views on court cases can strengthen the public's trust and acceptance of the courts as the proper venue for settling legal disputes and delivering justice.

This is evident in the United States, where the power of the courts to punish for contempt by publication is extremely limited, but its judiciary has been respected by the highly litigious Americans.

For the sake of freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution and accountability and credibility of the judiciary itself, Thailand must not punish anyone who expresses objective and constructive opinions on any court rulings which are final.

Editorial

Bangkok Post editorial column

These editorials represent Bangkok Post thoughts about current issues and situations.

Email : anchaleek@bangkokpost.co.th

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (27)