The Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for holders of Political office is a unique judicial body. Formed in accordance with the 1997 Constitution it came into operation on the 4th September 1999 with the passage of The Organic Act on criminal procedure for holders of Political office B.E 2542 (1999).
The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E 2540 (1997)
Section 272 There shall be in the Supreme Court of Justice a Criminal Division for Persons holding Political Positions the quorum of which consists of nine judges in the Supreme Court of Justice holding a position of not lower than Judge of the Supreme Court of Justice or senior judges having held a position of not lower than Judge of the Supreme Court of Justice and elected at the general assembly of the Supreme Court of Justice by secret ballot and on a case-by-case basis. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Justice’s Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions and the criminal procedure for such persons shall be as provided by this Constitution and the Organic Act on Criminal Procedure for Persons Holding Political Positions.
This has now been transposed into Section 219 of the current 2007 Constitution.
Unlike all other departments in the Supreme Court, it does not have a full time bench of Justices, and for each case, a chamber of nine Justices must be selected by secret ballot from the Grand Senate of the Supreme Court, which at the time of the Ratchada-Phisek land Trial comprised 84 Justices. Section 13 of the organic Act also allows either the Prosecution or defence to challenge the inclusion of any particular justice on the grounds of prejudice or conflict of interest. Should a motion be accepted then replacements will be selected. The original selection was made on 22nd June 2007, and each of the nine selected obtained votes ranging from 72 to 47. The defence did object to Juvenile and Family Courts chairman Wasant Soipisut (วสันต์ สร้อยพิสุทธิ์) and Environment Litigation Division chairman Surachart Bunsiripan (สุรชาติ บุญศิริพันธ์), and they were replaced on January 15th 2008 by Supreme Court deputy chairman Wattanachai Chotchutrakul and the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders chairman Kriangchai Jungjaturapit, who were again selected by the full bench of 84 Supreme Court Justices.
Jurisdiction Organic Act on Criminal Procedure for Persons Holding Political Positions
Section 9 The court shall be competent to address the followings: (1) A case the cause of action of which involves an accusation that the Prime Minister, Minister, Member of the House of Representatives, Senator or other political officer possesses unusual wealth, commits an offence against public office under the criminal code or commits an offence against office or corruption in office under other laws (2) A case the cause of action of which involves an accusation that the person under (1) or other person is a principal, abettor or aider in the commission of the offence mentioned in (1)
Section 24 If a criminal case is instituted on one act violating several laws, and one of them falls within the jurisdiction of the court, the court will also accept to deal with the others
What this means is that although Pojaman Shinawatra was not a political office holder, because her husband was, and he was one of the accused, the court had full jurisdiction over every aspect of the criminal case against her over these particular accusations.
Basic Principle of the Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for holders of political office. The consideration of a case by the Supreme Courts (Criminal Division) for holders of political office is conducted on the basis of the Inquisitorial system under the civil legal system not the adversarial system where the role of the court is solely that of an impartial referee between parties as in other regular cases. It is not unusual for the bench to ask as many questions of a witness as either the Prosecutor or defence lawyers in order to get a clear understanding of what has taken place.
Judges for the Ratchada – Phisek land trial
Wattanachai Chotchutrakul. (วัฒนชัย โชติชูตระกูล) He served as the Supreme Court’s secretary when the late Pramarn Chansue was its president. He was a key player in the 1991 judiciary crisis. He has served as director-general of the Legal Execution Department and a member of the judiciary’s committee studying the draft 2007 constitution.
Somsak Netramai. (สมศักดิ์ เนตรมัย) He chaired a committee investigating members of the National Counter Corruption Commission, with Pol General Wuthichai Sriratanawut as their chairman, for allegedly committing malfeasance by giving themselves a salary raise. The Supreme Court handed the nine NCCC members a suspended jail sentence. He later went onto being the presiding judge in assets case of Thaksin Shinawatra in 2010.
Suwat Watthanahathai. (สุวัฒน์ วรรธนะหทัย) He was one of the three minority judges in the NCCC case. However, the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Office voted 6-3 to find the NCCC members guilty
Somchai Pongsatha. (สมชาย พงษธา) He was one of the Constitution Tribunal judges who favoured dissolving the Thai Rak Thai Party in the election fraud case.
Thonglo Chom-ngam. (ทองหล่อ โฉมงาม) The presiding judge. He was on a committee investigating an alleged attempt to bribe Constitution Tribunal judges in the election fraud case against the Thai Rak Thai Party.
Prapan Sapsang. (ประพันธ์ ทรัพย์แสง) Former head of the Supreme Court’s (Criminal Division) for Holders of Political Office. He was on the judiciary committee that sentenced former public health minister Rakkiat Sukthana to 15 years in prison for corruption and on the panel that handed down a suspended jail term to the NCCC members. He once said ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra must be extradited to face trial in the Ratchada Phisek case.
Pichit Kamfang. (พิชิต คำแฝง) When the Supreme Court’s general meeting voted to select five of its judges to sit on the Constitution Tribunal, Pichit tied with Nurak Mapraneet as fifth in the number of votes. Lots were drawn and Pichit failed to become the last nominee from the Supreme Court.
Thirawat Pattaranawat. (ธีระวัฒน์ ภัทรานวัช) He served as a judge in regional courts, the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. His positions included director-general of regional courts and chief justice of Region 5 of the Court of Appeals
Kriangchai Juengchaturapit. (เกรียงชัย จึงจตุรพิธ) The head of the Supreme Court (Criminal Division) for Holders of Political Office. He warned Thaksin supporters that greeting him with raucous cheers and flowers in the court compound could be regarded as contempt of court.
Source: The Nation newspaper
Appeal
Unlike the 1997 Constitution, the new 2007 Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand includes the provision for an appeal
Section 278 An adjudication of a case shall be made by a majority of votes; provided that every judge constituting the quorum shall prepare his or her written opinion and make oral statements to the meeting prior to the passing of a resolution. An order and a decision of the Supreme Court of Justice’s Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions shall be disclosed and be final, except it is the case under paragraph three. In the case where the person on whom a decision of the Supreme Court of Justice’s Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions has been given has found fresh evidence likely to result in a material alteration of facts, such person may appeal to the general assembly of the Supreme Court of Justice within thirty days as from the date of the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice’s Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions. The submission of an appeal and the hearing as well as the adjudication of the general assembly of the Supreme Court of Justice shall be in accordance with the Rule prescribed by the general assembly of the Supreme Court of Justice
When an appeal has been lodged, a general assembly of the Supreme Court of Justices will meet and select five Justices, (none of whom must have sat on the original trial) who will decide whether the evidence presented meets the criteria under section 278 of the Constitution. .
To date No Appeal has ever got beyond the screening committee For the Ratchada-Phisek land case, no appeal was lodged
