RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53

THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF PUBLIC PROSECUTORS IN
THAILAND
Somjai Kesornsiricharoen*
I. INTRODUCTION
In this report, I will address general
information about the responsibilities andadministration of the Office of the Attorney
General of Thailand. Emphasis will be put
on its role in the national criminal justicesystem, i.e., the role in investigation,prosecution function, scope of discretion,
the role in trial, and sentencing as well as
controls on prosecution authority. Finally,
the problems facing the public prosecutors
in Thailand and their tentative
recommendations for solution will bepresented for your information in thecomparative study of the role and functionsof the public prosecutors.
II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
From 1887, in the reign of King
Chulalongkorn, Thailand modernized herlegal system to avoid from being the victim
of extraterritoriality from the thenpowerful western countries. The Ministryof Justice was founded in 1892. From 1893,
the courts have since been within theadministration of the Ministry of Justice,but guaranteed independence in judicial
affairs. In 1893, the Office of the Attorney
General was established to be in charge of
public prosecution. The first Thai penal
code was introduced in 1908 before beingreformed and reintroduced in 1956. As to
the Thai criminal procedural code, it has
been in effect since 1935. In that era,
Thailand adopted the civil law system.
However, the common law influence still* Senior Public Prosecutor, International Affairs
Department, Office of the Attorney General,
Thailand.

280

existed in some areas of law including theprocedure laws of Thailand. Private
prosecution and adversary proceedings incriminal trial are some examples in thatregard.
The Office of the Attorney General wasan agency of the Ministry of Justice at thetime of its establishment. From 1922 to1991, it was part of the Ministry of Interior.
Since 1991, the Office has become an
independent agency under the directsupervision of the Prime Minister to ensure
more independence and impartiality of the
public prosecutors. Accordingly, the Prime
Minister has no authority to interfere withthe criminal justice functions of the publicprosecutors. His role is limited only toadministrative functions of the Office of the
Attorney General.
III. FUNCTIONS AND
INDEPENDENCE
As Thailand is a single state, the Officeof the Attorney of Thailand is the sole officethat has the primary functions ofprosecuting and litigating criminal cases
throughout the country. The office is also
assigned to defend government officials
charged with offenses related to the lawful
performance of their duty. Moreover,regarding international mutual legal
assistance in criminal matters, the Officeserves as the Central Authority. In
addition, the Office is entrusted with theduty to protect the state interest byrendering legal opinions to government
agencies, reviewing draft government
contracts, and handling civil cases whereby
public agencies are parties. The Office also
acts as the center of civil rights protection

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
as well as renders national legal aid to thepoor and needy.
The powers and functions of the publicprosecutors in the Thai criminal justicesystem are not addressed in the current
national constitution as those of judges.
However, they are clearly stated in a
number of legislation ranging from the
Criminal Procedure Code of 1934, theCriminal Procedure in Summary Court of1979, and the Establishment of theJuvenile and Family Court and its
procedures. There are also some provisions
in the Penal Code authorizing publicprosecutors to propose to the court somesafety measures, i.e., relegation,prohibition to enter a specified area, to
execute a bond with security for keeping
the peace, to be kept under a restraint in a
hospital, prohibition to carry on a certain
kind of occupation, to be imposed to somedangerous convicted persons.1 Moreover,public prosecutors are subject to the Public
Prosecutors Act of 1955 and have to comply
with internal regulation and subsequent
amendments providing for the standard tobe followed in their performing of functions
related to criminal justice.
The public prosecutors under the Office
are career professionals like in mostcounties. The system does not allow thegovernment to appoint any other legal
professional to serve temporarily as apublic prosecutor in any type of case as seen
in some countries. The qualifications tobecome a public prosecutor and screening
procedures are the same as those forjudges, i.e., being a Thai citizen by birth,
not less than 25 years old, graduated froman accredited law school and the Thai Bar
Association, having practiced law at least
two years, and (more importantly) having
no criminal or disciplinary sanction record.
Moreover, the applicants have to survive

the very competitive recruiting
examinations occasionally held. The
successful candidates have to undergo
practical training for one year in theposition as assistant prosecutors before
being royally appointed as publicprosecutors. The retirement age of all
public prosecutors is 60 years.
To ensure their independence and equal
status with the judiciary, there exists the
Public Prosecutors Commission separate
from the ordinary Civil Service
Commission to be exclusively responsible
for the personnel management affairs of
p r o s e c u t o r s , n a m e l y, r e c r u i t m e n t ,placement, appointment, promotion andtransfer. The Commission consists of 15
members, chaired by a retried highranking public prosecutor elected byprosecutors from all over the country. The
Attorney General, four Deputy Attorney
Generals, the Director General of Criminal
Litigation Department, the Director
General of Legal Counsel Department, andthe Director General of Planning andDevelopment Department are members ex
officio of the Commission. It also includes
three elected executive public prosecutors
and three elected retired executive publicprosecutors. It should be noted that theCommission has absolute power tonominate the Attorney General of Thailand
prior to the official appointment by His
Majesty the King. There are now about
1965 public prosecutors working
throughout the country.2
IV. THE ROLE IN CRIMINALINVESTIGATION
Unlike the public prosecutors in the
U.S., Japan, the Republic of Korea,

2

1

See Appendix F for statistics on safety measuresin 1996.

See Appendixes A-1 and A-3 for the organization of
the Office of the Attorney General and for statistics
on number of the public prosecutors in Thailand,
ranged by positions.

281

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
Indonesia or Germany 3, the Thai publicprosecutors make prosecution decisions
only based on the evidence presented by
the police in investigation files as they haveno power at all in the investigation process
by initiating, neither by taking control nor
by supervising the investigation. By law,
there is almost complete separation
between the investigation and prosecution
as the investigation is under the soleauthority of the police.4 Accordingly, thepolice has absolute power in the issuanceand execution of arrest warrant or any
other type of warrants or in granting bail3

Kittipong Kittayarak and David Johnson,“Prosecution System in Seven Countries: A
Comparative Analysis”, a research paper written
in February 1995 for UNAFEI, Tokyo Japan,
published in ACPF TODAY by Asia Crime
Prevention Foundation, pp. 86-96 (June 1994).
4 Thailand Criminal Procedures Code (CPC), sections
120 and 121.
Section 120, “The public prosecutor shall not entera charge in Court without an investigation having
previously done related to the offense in respect ofwhich the charge is entered.”
Section 121, “The investigative official has the power
to investigation in reference to all criminal cases.
But in case of compoundable offense, investigation
shall not be held unless a complaint has been made.”
5 The police has the power to detain the arrested for
up to three days from the time of arrest to theirpresence before the court. Thereafter, the police
has to request an extension of detention from thecourt for the purpose of completing theinvestigation. The court has the power to grant
one or several successive remands not exceeding
12 days each, but the total period depends on theseriousness and gravity of the charges, but the
maximum is 84 days. (CPC section 87 as amended
in 1996.) However, for minor offenses triable inMagistrate Courts, after the arrest, the police are
required to send the suspect together with theinvestigation file to the public prosecutors so that
he is charged to the courts within 48 hours fromthe time of his arrest. (Law on the Establishmentof Magistrate Courts and procedures of 1956,
section 7 as amended in 1996)282

to alleged offenders during an investigation
stage, without screening procedures byeither the courts or public prosecutors.5
Senior police officials from the rank of Sublieutenant as the head of sub police station
and upwards can issue arrest or search
warrants by themselves. Moreover,warrantless arrests and searches areallowed by the police in somecircumstances.6
6

According to CPC section 78, a warrantless arrest
could be executed in the following cases:(1) when such person has committed a flagrant
offense as defined in section 80.
(2) when such person is found attempting tocommit an offense, or is found under suspicious
circumstances indicating his intention tocommit an offense by having in his possession
implement, arms or other articles likely to be
used for the commission of an offense;(3) when there are reasonable grounds to suspectthat such person has committed an offense andis about to abscond; and(4) when another person has requested the arrestof such person charging him with thecommission of an offense and stating that aregular complaint has been made.
According to CPC section 92, a warrantless search could
be executed in a private place in the following cases:(1) where there is a cry for help emanating fromthe private place(2) where a flagrant offense is evidently beingcommitted in the private place(3) where a person having committed a flagrant
offense, while being perused, taken refuge; orthere are serious grounds for suspecting thatsuch person is concealing, in private place;(4) where there are reasonable grounds for
suspecting that an article obtained through anoffense is concealed or to be found inside andthere are reasonable grounds to believe that byreason of delay in obtaining a warrant of search
the article is likely to be removed;(5) where the person to be arrested is the head of
the household of such private place and there
is a warrant for his arrest, or the arrest is to bemade under section 78....”

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
Thai public prosecutors cannot give any
direction to the police officer of a criminal
investigation from the outset of the reportof the crime, thus making them different
from their counterparts in other civil law
countries. The role of public prosecutors
only begins in all types of cases, no matter
how serious or sensational the cases are,after the completion of the investigationand the police sends the investigation fileto them for consideration to prosecute or
not prosecute. The public prosecutors may
send a request to the police for further
investigation or send them any witnesses
for their own inquiry but have no chance
to examine the alleged offenders
themselves. However, by reviewing theevidence as only chosen to be presented by
the police, they have certainly no chance
to verify the truth of the case. Even when
the police fabricate or bring in misleading
evidence as a result of bribery or prejudiceagainst the offenders or victims, the publicprosecutors have no way to perceive suchfacts. Such practice has led to excessive
power and abuse of power by the police dueto the lack of checking mechanisms toensure the legality and truthfulness of theinvestigation.
Seeing this situation as a serious
obstacle to ensuring justice to all parties
in criminal procedure, the Office of the
Attorney General has struggled for somerole in the investigation stage for years.
Actually, we do not need to take over theinvestigation from the police in all cases
but for some high profile or complicatedcases or special offenses in a position as asupervisor. However, we have neverachieved such goals due to politically strong
and powerful opposition by the police. This
also reflects an erroneous perspective andinadequate cooperation among agencies in
the criminal justice system. Our striving
for some role in the investigation was
distorted as a fight for power rather thana sincere effort for more justice andefficiency in the criminal process.

V. FUNCTION OF PROSECUTION
As in most countries, one of significant
function of public prosecutors is to makeprosecution orders against alleged
offenders or non-prosecution orders. In
Thailand, public prosecutors are notallowed to institute a charge in court
without previous investigation with regard
to that charge.7 As above-mentioned, Thai
public prosecutors have no role in theinvestigation stage, thereby, making theirdecisions only based on the evidence foundin the initial investigation file or in a
supplementary file presented by the police
as a result of further investigationaccording to a public prosecutor’s order.
Their prosecution orders are usually basedon the sufficiency of evidence presented toprove the offenders guilt to the court. They
have no chance to interview the suspect
before the prosecution or give instruction
to conduct further investigation. Under thelaw, the prosecution order is final. The
courts usually accept the case to trial
without preliminary hearing in all typesof cases, even though the law allows themto do so if they think fit, due to their trustin the screening of cases by the publicprosecutors. Nonetheless, due to the lackof opportunity to deal with the evidence
from the beginning, sometimes we cannot
save the innocent offender from being
prosecuted. There is no written law
defining the evidentiary standard for the
charge in Thailand. In practice, thestandard in prosecution is usually basedon probable cause. In other words, Thai
public prosecutors will normally issue aprosecution order if the case is likely to gain
conviction against the accused.
It should be noted that Thai publicprosecutors have no power to accept a pleaof guilty to a lesser crime than originallycharged or plea bargaining as is done in
the United States. Additionally, in casesof theft, snatching, robbery, gang-robbery,
7

CPC section 120.

283

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
piracy, extortion, cheating and fraud,criminal misappropriation and receiving
stolen property, public prosecutors also
have the responsibility to request for acourt order granting the restitution of theassets by the defendant to the victim of thecrime or indemnity thereof.8
In case of insufficiency of evidence, theprosecutor will normally issue a nonprosecution order. However, this type oforder, if not issued by the Attorney General
himself, is not final unless concurred by the
Director-General of Police Department forcases occurring in Bangkok, or by theProvincial Governor for cases occurringoutside Bangkok. If they disagree with theorder, the case will finally be reviewed by
the Attorney General and, therefore, hisorder, whether or not to prosecute, will befinal.9 The final non-prosecution order
8 CPC section 43, “In cases of theft, snatching, robbery,gang robbery, piracy, extortion, cheating and fraud,criminal misappropriation and receiving stolen
property, where the injured person has the right toclaim the restitution of the property he has been
deprived of through the offense, or the value thereof,
the public prosecutor, when insituting the criminal
prosecution, shall, on behalf of the injured person, apply
for restitution of the property or the value thereof.”
9 CPC section 145, “In the case where there is an issue
of a non-prosecution order other than that of the
Attorney General, if it is in Bangkok, the investigation
file together with the order shall forthwith besubmitted to the Director-General, Deputy DirectorGeneral or Assistant Director-General of the Police
Department, the file of investigation together withconflicting opinions shall be sent to Attorney Generalfor decision. If it is in provincial area, the file ofinvestigation together with the order shall forthwith
be submitted to the Governor of such province...
In the case where the Director-General, Deputy
Director-General or Assistant Director-General of the
Police Department, or the Governor of the otherprovince disagrees with the order of the publicprosecutor, the file together with conflicting opinions
shall be sent to the Attorney General for decision....”
See also Appendix B for statistics on the decisions of
the Attorney General during 1991-1996.

284

usually prevents further investigation
against the offender on account of the sameoffense unless there is fresh evidencematerial to case that would likely lead tothe conviction of the alleged offender.10 The
power of the Attorney General in issuingnon-prosecution order has been strongly
criticized recently because it is argued that
it is irrevocable and not subject to be
examined by any agency in the criminal
justice.
On the other hand, like in England andWales 11 and some other common law
countries, the CPC also allows private
prosecution or prosecution by the victim or
injured party12 in most types of cases except
10 CPC section 147 “After a final non-prosecution

order has been issued, no investigation can be madeagain relating to the same person on account of thesame offense, unless there is fresh evidencematerial to the case that would likely lead to theconviction of the alleged offender.”11 Kittipong Kittayarak and David Johnson,“Prosecution System in Seven Countries: A
Comparative Analysis”, supra note 3.
12 According to CPC Articles 1(4), 5 and 6, “injured
person” means a person who has received injury
through the commission of any offense including:(1) the legal representative or custodian in respect
only of offenses committed against the minor
or incompetent person under his charge;(2) the ascendant for descendant, the husband orwife, in respect only of criminal offenses inwhich the injured person is so injured that hedied or is unable to act by himself;(3) the manager or other representatives of a legal
person in respect of any offense committed
against such legal person; and(4) in a criminal case where the injured person isa minor having no legal representative, or is aperson of unsound mind or an incompetentperson having no custodian, or where the legal
representative or custodian is unable todischarge his duty for any reason including
conflict of interests with the minor orincompetent person, a relative of such person
or an interested person may apply to the court
to appoint him as a representative ad litem.”107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
the cases where the state is the sole injured
party such as offenses against the state
security or against the Monarchy, etc.
Therefore, the final non-prosecution orders
usually will not bar private prosecution
against the same offender.13 Nevertheless,in practice, the public prosecutors
dominate the prosecution because there isso limited private prosecution brought to
13 CPC section 34, “A non-prosecution order does not

bar the right of the injured person himself toinstitute a prosecution.”
14 CPC section 162 (1)CPC section 162 “Where the charge is found to be
conform with the law, the Court shall act as follows:(1) in the case where a private prosecution is theprosecutor, the Court shall make a preliminary
examination, but, if the public prosecutor has
also instituted a criminal prosecution with thesame charge, sub section (2) will apply;(2) in the case entered by the public prosecutor,
the Court need not to hold a preliminary
examination, but may do so if it thinks fit.
In the case where there is a preliminary
examination as aforesaid, if the accused pleads
guilty, the Court shall accept the charge fortrial.”
15 CPC sections 165 and 170.
Section 165, “In the case where the charge isentered by a private prosecutor, the Court has thepower to hold the preliminary examination in theabsence of the accused; the Court shall serve oneach accused a copy of the charge and notify him ofthe date fixed for the preliminary examination. The
accused may attend the examination with orwithout a defense counsel to cross-examine thewitness or the prosecution. If he will not attend,
he may appoint a counsel to cross-examine thewitnesses for the prosecution. The accused shallnot be asked by the Court to make a statement,
and, before acceptance of the charge, the accusedshall not be treated as such”.
Section 170, “The order of the Court to the effectthat there is a prima facie case is final, but the orderto the effect that there is no prima facie case may
be appealed against by the prosecutor in accordancewith the provisions of this Code governing appeal.”trial in this case as a result of the public’s
trust in the professional competence of
public prosecutors. Moreover, private
prosecution is subject to a screening by the
court through preliminary hearing. 14
During the preliminary hearing, thedefendant is not allowed to present his own
witnesses but allowed to appoint a lawyer
to defend him and entitled to cross-examine
the plaintiff ’s witness. The order of thecourt to accept the case to trial is final.15
In juvenile delinquency cases, theinjured party cannot bring the case to court
without the approval of the Director of theJuvenile Observation and Protection
Center in order to protect the children from
improper humiliation. 16 In case of his
consideration of non-prosecution, theinjured person may apply by motion to thecourt for permission to bring the criminalcase to court. Such order of the court will
be final.
However, in most cases, private
prosecution in practice is practically
restricted to compoundable offenses suchas offenses against bad checks or
defamation offenses. Additionally, in caseof prosecution by public prosecutors, theinjured party may apply by motion to thetrial court to be a joint plaintiff in the case.17
However, they are prevented from doing oromitting to do any act causing detriment
to the case of the public prosecutor or else
the public prosecutor may request the court
to order the injured party to do or not to dosuch acts. On the other hand, in a criminal
prosecution of a non-compoundable offense
instituted by the injured person, the public
16 There are 11 Juvenile and Family Courts and 19

Juvenile and Family sections of Provincial Courts
scattered throughout Thailand.
17 CPC section 30, “In a criminal prosecution
instituted by the public prosecutor, the injured
person may apply by motion to associate himself
as prosecutor at any stage of the proceedings before
the pronouncement of judgment by the Court ofFirst Instance.”

285

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
prosecutors may apply by motion toassociate themselves as prosecutor at any
time before the conclusion of the case.18
In addition to insufficiency of evidence,in all cases according the CPC, the right toprosecute by the public prosecutors is also
repealed by the following reasons:19(1) the death of the offender;(2) in case of a compoundble offense, thewithdrawal of the compliant or of theprosecution or by lawful compromise;(3) the settlement of the offense in petty
cases according to the CPC
requirement20;(4) a final judgment in reference to theoffense for which the prosecution has
been instituted;

18 CPC section 31, “in a criminal prosecution of a non-compoundable offence instituted by the injured
person, the public prosecutor may apply by monitor
to associate himself, as prosecutor any time before
the case becomes final.”
19 CPC section 39.
20 According to CPC section 37, for trivial offenses
punishable with only with a fine, the cases can be
settled by the payment of maximum fine by theoffenders to the police officers. Likewise, foroffenses punishable with maximum of one-month
imprisonment or a fine not exceeding 1000 baht
(US$40), or other offenses as having punishable
only with fine of the maximum not exceeding ten
thousand baht (US$400), or tax offenses with the
maximum of fine not exceeding 10000 baht
(US$400), the police officers investigating the cases
can impose an administrative fine on the offenders.
If the offenders voluntarily pay the amount of fine
fixed by the investigator, the cases can be dropped
from prosecution.
After the case has been settled by the investigating
officer by such means, the investigation file andtogether with the notes of settlement must be sent
to the public prosecutor. If the public prosecutor isof the opinion that the settlement is not proper, he
may make a prosecution order and request thealleged offender for prosecution.

286(5) the coming into force of a law
subsequent to the commission of theoffense, abolishing such offense;(6) prescription; and(7) amnesty.
VI. PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION
The CPC does not clearly prohibit the
public prosecutors from using discretion in
not to prosecute any offender even if there
exists sufficient evidence to prove his guiltin court. Even if there is sufficientevidence, public prosecutors should
consider whether the public interest
requires prosecution. However, the publicprosecutors have exercised this discretionfor public interest in only a few cases. Oneof the historic cases was that the Attorney
General had used this discretion in
deciding not to prosecute a briber in orderto save him as a key state witness against
a corrupt minster because he thought thatthe public interest in punishing the corrupt
official outweighed the briber’s misconduct.
According to the internal regulation on thehandling of criminal cases by publicprosecutors, it clearly states that if a publicprosecutor is of opinion that theprosecution may not accord the public
interest or be against the public moral ororder or affect the national security orimportant national interest, he must refer
the case to the Attorney General for further
consideration.
The Office of the Attorney General iscautious in exercising the discretion byrequiring approval of the Attorney General.
Nonetheless, only a few cases have been
forwarded to the Attorney General for
consideration.
Moreover, in juvenile delinquency cases,
the Law on the Establishment of Juvenile
and Family Courts and Their Procedures,clearly states that public prosecutors are
entrusted with prosecutorial discretion in
dropping a case if proposed by the Directorof the Juvenile Observation Center that

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
such delinquents can improve their
behavior and easily go back to normal life.
Their orders are final and not subject toany review. Nonetheless, so far, no casehas been forwarded to public prosecutors
for a non-prosecution order according tothis section.
In the past, we attempted to introduce
the system of suspended prosecution by law
as a means of expansion of discretionary
power in order to reduce to caseloads incourts and population in jail. More
importantly, we realized that in manycases, criminal penalization might not beappropriate for some offenders in some
types of cases. We proposed to use thesuspension of prosecution scheme forcrimes of negligence or minor offenses witha maximum imprisonment of not morethan three years and conditional upon theconfession of the offenders and their
willingness to comply with the conditionsof probation or supervision to be imposedby the public prosecutors. If such offenders
commit no crime during that period, theprosecution will be permanently dropped.
If they commit other crime or fail to accord
to any imposed condition, the suspensionof prosecution will be withdrawn and they
will be prosecuted for both crimes.
However, we failed to achieve this for lackof correct understanding of the role ofpublic prosecutors among our criminal
agencies concerned. It was misinterpreted
as interference with the power of the
judiciary. As a result, presently, there exist
case overloads in courts and prisons are
overcrowded. Surely, this situation will beworse in the future.
VII. ROLE IN CRIMINAL TRIAL
As in most countries, a defendant isguaranteed under the constitution to bepresumed innocent until proven guilty.
Before the trial, public prosecutors will
institute criminal prosecution by entry ofa charge in the courts.21 A charge has toindicate sufficient facts as to the time andplace of such act and the persons or articles
concerned which are reasonably sufficient
to give the accursed a clear understandingof the charge.
According to the CPC, the criminal trial
is required to be done in open court and in
the presence of the defendant. When the
public prosecutor and the defendant are
before the court, and after the court has
been satisfied as to the identity of the
defendant, the charge will be read out andexplained to the accused and then he will
be asked whether or not he has committed
the crime and what will be his defense. The
statement made by the accused will be
written down. The defendants areguaranteed, according to CPC, the right toa defense lawyer in cases of capital
punishment. Additionally, in cases where
the defendant is a juvenile of no more than
17 years of age or where the imprisonment
21 The courts in Thailand are divided into three levels,

namely, the Courts of First Instance, the Court ofAppeal and the Supreme Court. Crimes occurringin Bangkok may be prosecuted in the Criminal
Court, and the the Southern Bangkok Court, andthe Thonburi Criminal Court, depending on the
territorial jurisdiction of those courts. However,for the offense having an imprisonment term notexceeding three years or a fine not over 60,000 baht,
the case must be prosecuted in the Magistrate Court
having jurisdiction over the case. Moreover,juvenile delinquents committing crimes in Bangkok
shall be prosecuted in the Central Juvenile andFamily Court. In the provinces, the criminal charge
must be filed in the Provincial Court, theMagistrate Court or the Provincial Juvenile andFamily Courts as the case may be. Judges of theMagistrate Court sit singlely as opposed to othercourts of first instance where two judges are
required for the forum. The quorum of the Juvenile
Court consists of two career judges and two
associate judges, one of which must be a woman.
See Appendix A-3 for the organization of the courtsof justice in Thailand.

287

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
penalty is defined, the lawyers will be
provided if needed by the defendant.22
The Thai judiciary has been entrustedwith exclusive power to determine bothquestions of fact and of law in criminalcases, as there is no jury system inThailand. It is noteworthy that there is nopractice of pre-trial meeting to facilitate or
expedite the trial process among the judge,
public prosecutor and defense lawyer as
seen in some countries. Before the trial,
public prosecutors need not to disclose theirevidence to the defense. They have toprovide only a list of witness anddocuments to the court and the defense.
Unlike in Japan, in case that thedefendant pleads guilty, the court willconvict and sentence him according to thelaw without any further hearing except ina case of serious offence where a minimum
penalty is more than five years
imprisonment. In such cases, the court has
to hear the public prosecutors’ evidence tobe sure that the defendant is the real
offender. Normally, this trial is in brief.
The public prosecutors will present to thecourt all relevant documents and bring key
witnesses or the victim to testify before thecourt so as to prove that there was crimecommitted by such a defendant. The courts
usually reduce the penalty to be imposed

22 CPC section 173, as amended in 1996, “In the caseof offenses punishable with death and before
commencing trial, the Courts shall ask the accused
as to having a defense counsel or not. If he has
none, the Court shall appoint one for him.
In the cases of offenses punishable withimprisonment and in cases of offenses committed
by the accused not yet exceeding 18 years of age on
the day of charge, the Court before commencing thetrial, shall ask the accused whether he has a counsel
or not. If he has none and requires one, the Court
shall appoint one for them.
The Court shall pay a reward, as specified by theRegulation of the Ministry of Justice, to the counsel
appointed according to this section.”288

by half in case that the defendants plead
guilty.
In contested cases, the publicprosecutors have to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the defendant is
guilty as charged. Public prosecutors
usually have the burden in search of thetruth and present evidence to the court. In
criminal trials, the courts have broad
discretion in accepting evidence. CPC
section 226 provides that any material,
documentary or oral evidence likely toprove the guilt or the innocence of theaccused is admissible, provided that it is
not obtained through any inducement,
promise, threat, deception or otherunlawful means. As to hearsay evidence,
it seems that there is no provision of law
prohibiting hearsay evidence. All evidence
will be admissible if relevant to the caseand legally acquired. It has been
consistently held that the witnesses’
deposition and the accused’s confession
made to the police at the investigation
stage could not be admitted to court if they
were executed by threat, deception,
promise or other wrongful means. 23
However, the real question is the value ofsuch evidence when the defendant denies
his voluntariness of such statement.
The Thai courts have long adopted theadversary manner procedures whereby the
courts are impartially passive throughout
the trial. Their role in the trial is to takenote of the witness testimony as examined
and cross-examined by the parties, bringrelated documents into the file, and decideupon verbal arguments raised during thatsession. Such practices have induced
strong criticism by some scholars thatjustice may not be best done unless thecourts also play an active role in the
23 CPC section 135, “No investigating officer shallmake or cause to be made, any deception, threat orpromise to any alleged offender inducing such
person to make any particular statement concering
the charge against him.”

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
courtroom. As a consequence, this has led
to a very difficult task for publicprosecutors in Thailand because they haveno chance to become familiarized with theevidence and are not in a position toobserve the effectiveness and legality of theinvestigation from the beginning. Even
when the witnesses reverse their
testimony, public prosecutors have no way
to determine which testimony is true.
Principally, public prosecutors arepresumed impartial throughout thecriminal trial. The true aim of theprosecution should be to seek the truth
rather than merely seek a conviction.
Practically, this is highly possible inexercising a prosecution function stage.
However, during trial, it is very hard forthe public prosecutors to be impartial
because they have to fight strongly against
defense lawyers without the help from thecourt in seeking justice in the case.24
The trial session is usually not conductedin a consecutive period. The courts always
set a trial session by appointment as agreed
by all parties, usually once or twice amonth. Some cases take one or two years
or more to complete. As a result, for someinnocent defendants, if unable to be
granted bail, such long period of trial
aggravates their suffering and tragedy.
Therefore, the Ministry of Justice is now
proposing a bill to provide a compensation
scheme for those innocent defendants as aresult of the miscarriage of justice. The
bill is now under consideration of thegovernment.
It should be noted that publicprosecutors could exercise discretion towithdraw the cases from trial in the Court

24 See Appendixes G to I for statistics on judgmentsof the Courts of First Instance. Please note thatthe conviction rate is very high but it includes somany trivial cases or some serious cases where
defendants plead guilty.

of First Instance.25 However, the law does
not establish clear-cut guidelines for thewithdrawal of cases. Public prosecutors
should do this with caution to the interestof justice. The withdrawal of a case by
public prosecutors does not deter the
injured person from re-instituting
prosecution. 26 In practice, the publicprosecutors used to exercise this discretionin politically-related cases so as to preserve
national unity or avoid more turbulence inthe nation.
VIII. ROLE IN SENTENCING
The court has absolute power insentencing if the defendant is found guilty.
Unlike the U.S. justice system, there is nosentencing hearing separated from the trial
process in Thailand. Practically, public
25 CPC section 35, “A motion for leave to withdraw acriminal prosecution may be filed at any time before
judgment by the Court of First Instance. The Court
may issue an order granting or refusing such leave
as it thinks fit. If the motion is filed after theaccused has submitted his defense, he shall be
asked if he has any objections, and the Court shalldismiss the motion.”
26 CPC section 36, “A criminal prosecution which has
been withdrawn from a Court cannot be reinstitued
unless it falls under the following exceptions:(1) if the public prosecutor institutes a criminal
prosecution related to a non-compoundable
offence and then withdraws the prosecution,such withdrawal shall not debar the injured
person from re-instituting prosecution.
(2) if the public prosecutor withdraws a criminal
prosecution relating to a compoundable offense
without the consent in writing of the injured
person, such withdrawal shall not debar thelatter from re-instituting prosecution.
(3) if the injured person institutes a criminal
prosecution and then withdraws theprosecution, such withdrawal shall not debar
the public prosecutor form re-instituting
prosecution, except in case of a compoundable
offense.”289

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
prosecutors have no direct role in proposing
the appropriate sentences to court. The
sentencing procedure has long been
perceived as the exclusive matter of courts.
However, in presenting aggravating or
mitigating circumstances to the court
during trial proceedings, public prosecutors
have some role in contributing to a proper
punishment. However, in minor cases
where the imprisonment term does notexceed two years, the courts may adjournthe convicts’ sentences to allow court
probation officials to seek the truth about
their life, occupation behavior, theirmanner in committing crime, the effects
thereof or any other related information.
The courts may suspend the imprisonment
punishment for them for up to five years.
During such period, if there exists no othercrime committed by them, their penalty
will eventually be dropped.27 In the caseof violation of conditions, or the commission
27 Section 56 of the Thai Penal Code “Whenever any

person commits an offense punishable withimprisonment and in such case the Court shallpunish with imprisonment not exceed two years, if
it does not appear that such person has received
the punishment of imprisonment previously, or it
appears that such person has received thepunishment previously, but it is the punishment
for an offense committed by negligence or a petty
offense, the Court may, when taking into
consideration the age, past record, behavior,intelligence, education and training, health,condition of the mind, habit, occupation andenvironment of such person or the nature of theoffense, or other extenuating circumstances, pass
judgment, if it thinks fit, that such person is guilty,
but the determination of the punishment is to besuspended, or the punishment is determined, but
the infliction of the punishment is to be suspended,and then release such person with or without
conditions for controlling his behavior, so as to givesuch person an opportunity to reform himself withina period to time to be determined by the Court, but
it shall not exceed five years as from the day on
which the Court passes judgment....”

290of further crime, the court may modify theprevious conditions or revoke probationand then remand the probationer to theinstitution according to original
disposition.
IX. ROLE IN INTERNATIONAL
COOPERATION IN CRIMINALJUSTICEAs earlier mentioned, the Attorney
General is designated to act as the Central
Authority according to the Act on Mutual
Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters of
1992. Upon receipt of a request forassistance from a foreign State, theAttorney General is empowered to make adecision to grant or request assistancebased on the criteria provided by the law.
The services to be given include assistancein investigation, adducing evidence,
providing information and document,
service of document, search and seizure,transfer of a person in custody to testify as
a witness in the requesting State andinitiating a criminal case in court. The Act
has certainly proved our strong intent tocooperate with foreign authorities insuppressing transnational crimes. The
requesting countries could be contracting
parties or non-contracting parties if
assured reciprocity. The law has definitely
recognized the role of public prosecutors as
the center in criminal justiceadministration.
The Office of the Attorney General has
assigned the International Affairs
Department to work particularly in thisarea including extradition matters.
Presently, our office annually renders
service to several tens of requests fromforeign governments. Our greater role inthis area surely has a meaningful
contribution to international law
enforcement as a whole.

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
X. ROLE IN THE PROTECTION OF
CHILD’S RIGHTSThe Child’s Rights Protection Office wasfounded in the Office of the Attorney
General in 1995. Its responsibilities are toprotect a child’s rights by safeguarding its
rights according to international
standards, by assisting in criminal mattersspecially where children are victims ofcrime and to conducting liaison between
the governmental and non-governmental
agencies in combating and overcoming
child abuse and child exploitation
problems. From our experiences as publicprosecutors, we have learned that thecriminal procedures do aggravate thesuffering of child victims in many ways. We
are now assisting several NGOs and othergovernmental agencies in the improvementof criminal procedures related to childvictims to ensure the best interest of justice
and at the same time protecting child’s
rights. We are correspondingly working
with the Criminal Law Reform Instituteof Canada by seeking to launch a pilot
project in Chonburi, which is notorious forthe child sexual abuses business.
XI. CONTROLS OVER PUBLICPROSECUTORSThe performance of each publicprosecutor is controlled by their superiorand certainly subject to internal review. As
for the prosecution function, unlike inGermany, the Republic of Korea or Japan28,
in Thailand, no matter the case, the court
is not allowed to review the exercising of
discretion by public prosecutors. As for therole of the media, even though the Officeof the Attorney General is accessible to the
public, it is only limited to high-profile
cases. Under the law, as earlier mentioned,

the non-prosecution order, if not that of the
Attorney General, is not final unlessconcurred by the Provincial Governor forcases in the provincial jurisdiction or by
the Director General of Police Department
for cases in Bangkok jurisdiction. This is
the mechanism under the law to balance
the prosecutorial power. Recently, a newmechanism has been created in the Officeof the Attorney General to allow any party
dissatisfied with the role of the police or
the public prosecutors in the handling of acase to submit a petition directly to the
Attorney General for review. More
importantly, as also earlier stated, private
prosecution is also allowed under the CPC,
thereby, the injured party if not satisfied
with the prosecutor’s order can bring thecase to court against such offenders.
However, it happens infrequently due to for
their trust in public prosecutors. Besides,
the rule of working in a more transparent
and accountable manner has recently been
adopted in the Office of the Attorney
General in that any interested party can
examine the investigation file along withthe detailed reasoning of the publicprosecutor responsible for a case. As forthe order of the Attorney General, his final
decision on whether to prosecute or notprosecute will be published with detailed
reasoning. If there is any irregularity in acase, it can easily be found. In case there
are reasonable grounds to believe a there
must have been something like bribery as
an actual reason behind the order of the
public prosecutors, the interested party can
institute criminal proceeding on bribery
charges or call for disciplinary action
against such public prosecutors.

28 Kittipong

Kittayarak and David Johnson,
Prosecution System in Seven Countries: A
Comparative Analysis, supra note 3.

291

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
XII. CURRENT PROBLEMS FACING
PUBLIC PROSECUTORS IN
THAILAND AND TENTATIVERECOMMENDATIONS FOR THEIRSOLUTION
A. Nature of Problems
1. Problems Related to the Role inInvestigation and Prosecution
As previously stated, the criminal justicesystem in Thailand almost separates the
pre-trial stage functions between
investigation and prosecution. Publicprosecutors lack the opportunity to become
familiar with all evidence to be presented
to the court from the beginning. As such,
public prosecutors are in no position toobserve the correctness and legality of work
exclusively done by the police or to serve
as a balancing mechanism in theinvestigation process. As a result, thepublic prosecutors sometimes can not saveinnocent defendants from being prosecutedand can not ensure the injured party theefficiency of criminal justice enforcement.
2. Problems Related to the Role in
Diversion
Diversion has been recognized as ameaningful tool in criminal justiceadministration to help reduce the numberof cases, which are tried in court. As aconsequence, the court can concentrate on
serious crimes and at the same time suchmeans could better rehabilitate offenders
in some cases, such as offenses ofnegligence, domestic violence or juvenile
delinquency. Our proposal to introduce thesuspension of prosecution system to thismeans in the past was not acceptable.
However, it can be argued that for the lackof our role in investigation and the lack ofan opportunity to know in-depth about thecase, suspension of prosecution may not
function effectively.

292

3. Lack of Adequate Cooperation
among Criminal JusticeAgencies
In Thailand, criminal justice agencies
are not united in the same ministry. The
Office of the Attorney General is anindependent organ under the supervisionof the Prime Minister, while the Police
Department and the Corrections
Department are under the control of the
Ministry of Interior. In contrast tointernational practices, the Ministry ofJustice has the primary function of serving
judicial affairs rather than emphasising on
the administration of justice as seen in
most countries. Moreover, their training
or development of human resources is notunited because they have separated
training. Thus, it is subject to the policy ofeach agency rather than in the interest of
the criminal justice system as a whole.
This non-organization has resulted ininadequate coordination and cooperation
among those agencies due to their different
policies and practices. It has had
significant impact on the efficiency of law
enforcement.
B. Tentative Recommendations
1. The investigation and prosecutionfunction should not be completely
separated as in the current system. The
police should not be the sole organ toinitiate criminal proceedings. The role ofpublic prosecutors in the criminal justicesystem should be increased for the greater
efficiency of law enforcement. Publicprosecutors should be essentially
supported to do the function in initiating
the criminal process and have some role ofthe investigation of serious cases and, more
importantly, to do justice to both the victim
of crime and to the offender.

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
2. Public prosecutors should be
encouraged to exercise prosecutorial
discretion. However, more guidelines aswell as measures for internal and external
control, should be adopted to effectively
control public prosecutors in the exercise
of discretion and to prevent the abuse ofcontrol. Moreover, public prosecutors
should be directly accessible to the injured
party, the media and the public to ensureaccountability and transparency in theirwork.
3. Cooperation and coordination among
criminal justice agencies are essential in
the effectiveness of law enforcement.
Improvements in all organs should beharmonized and moved toward the same
direction to efficiently ensure safety insociety and protect all parties concerned.
The courts and public prosecutors inparticular should avoid their competitive
perspective. In this present situation
where each agency works independently,
one recent recommendation is that there
should be a coordinating committee
established to be a forum for harmonizationof criminal justice policy among them.
XIII. CONCLUSION
My paper has presented the view andexperience of a civil law country. As you
may have realized, Thailand has her own
unique criminal justice system and hassome practices different from other civil
law countries. However, there has beenlong been a struggle to change some defects
in the system. I hope that improvement
will be gradually realized in the future.
REFERENCES

3. C h a n t a r a s o m b o o n , A . , “ T h e
Investigation and Prosecution in theThai Criminal Justice System,” 30
Botbundit Law Journal 618 (1983) (inThai).
4. Kittayarak, K. and Johnson, David,“Prosecution in Seven Countries: A
Comparative Study,” ACPF TODAY(June 1994).
5. Nanakorn, K. and Kittayarak, K.
“Thailand” in Criminal Justice Profile
of Asia (UNAFEI), 1995.
6. N a N a k o r n , K . “ T h a i C r i m i n a l
Procedure: Conflict between Law andPractice” 15 Thammasat Law Journal
1 (September 1985) (in Thai).
7. Office of the Attorney General, Annual
Report 1995, 1996.
8. Office of the Attorney General, Reportof the Seminar on “The Sherry Ann
Duncan Case: How to the Criminal
Justice Could Protect the Rights andFreedom of the Innocent?” (1996) (inThai).
9. Office of the Attorney General, Reportof the Seminar on “How the Criminal
Justice Agencies Could Cooperate to
Seek the Truth in Criminal Cases?”(1996) (in Thai).
10. Tasneeyaond, P. “A Proposal for
Prosecutorial Reforms in Thailand”,
UNAFEI Resources Material SeriesNo. 18, March 1980, Reports of the
Seminar, Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan.
11. T h e S e n a t e C o m m i t t e e o n t h eAdministration and Criminal Justice,
Report of the Seminar on “The Thai
Criminal Justice System”, 1995 (inThai).
12. Sang-uthai, Y., “Who Should have theInvestigative Power?” 1 Thammasat
Law Journal 20, (July 1969) (in Thai).

1. The Criminal Procedure Code of 1934.
2. The Penal Code of 1957.

293

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
APPENDIX A-1
ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,THAILANDTHE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Bangkok Metropolis

Other Provinces

Criminal Litigation Dept.

Regional State Attorney Office (1-9)

Economic Crimes Dept.

Provincial State Attorney Office (73)

Narcotics Litigation Dept.

Provincial State Attorney Office of
The Magistrate Court. (21)Juvenile and Family
Litigation Dept.
Southern Bangkok
Litigation Dept.
Thonburi Criminal
Litigation Dept.

Provincial State Attorney of
Designated Areas (22)Provincial State Attorney Offices ofJuvenile and Family Litigation (11)Administration Dept.

Magistrate Court
Litigation Dept.

State Attorney Commission

Appellate Litigation Dept.

Training and Development
Legal Counsel Dept.

Tax Litigation Dept.
Technical Affairs Dept.
Labor Litigation Dept.
Attorney General’s Affairs Dept.

294

Civil Rights Protection
and Legal Aid Dept.

International Affairs Dept.

Civil Litigation Dept.

Thailand Criminal Law

504,156

479,077

450,203400,710382,649

Total
383,272

100

100

94

100

100

495,581

468,492

438,947

391,286

373,321

98.30

97.79

91.62

97.65

97.56

7,046

8,897

9,843

8,278

8,123

1.40

1.86

2.05

2.07

2.12

Percentage Prosecution Percentage Non-prosecution Percentage
100
374,137
97.62
8,051
2.10

1,529

1,688

1,413

1,146

1,205

Others
1,084

0.30

0.35

0.29

0.28

0.32

Percentage
0.28

The word “Others” means, for example, cases are sent back to inquiry officers or cases are not permitted to be prosecutedby the Attorney General.
Source: Office of the Attorney General.

Note:(1996)(1995)(1994)(1993)(1992)(1991)Year

PROSECUTION AND NON-PROSECUTION CASES OF ALLEGED OFFENDERS SENT TO THE STATEATTORNEYS DURING 1991-1996

APPENDIX A-2

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

295

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
APPENDIX A-3
NUMBER AND POSITIONS OF PUBLIC PROSECUTORS
Grade
8
7
6
5
4

3
2

1

Position

Number of Prosecutors
1
4
220

Attorney General
Deputy Attorney General– Chief Executive Public Prosecutors– Regional Chief Public Prosecutors
Senior Executive Public Prosecutors– Provincial Chief public Prosecutor– Provincial Chief Public Prosecutor(attached to the Office)Senior State Attorney– Public Prosecutors– Assistant Provincial Chief Public
Prosecutors
Assistant Public Prosecutors

302
472

527
93

Total
Male:
1800
Female: 168
Source: Office of the Attorney General, as of July 1997.

296

79
1968

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
APPENDIX A-4
THE COURTS OF JUSTICE IN THAILAND

The Supreme Court

The Court of Appeal andthe Regional Court ofAppeal (4)Courts of First Instance

Courts of First Instancein Bangkok Metropolis
The Criminal Courts
The Southern Bangkok Criminal Court
The Thonburi Criminal Court
The Northern Bangkok Magistrate Court
The Southern Bangkok Magistrate Court
The Thonburi Magistrate Court

Courts of First Instancein the Provinces
Provincial Courts
Provincial Magistrate
CourtsProvincial Juvenile andFamily Courts

The Dusit Magistrate Court
The Prakanong Magistrate Court
The Taling Chan Magistrate Court
The Civil Court
The Central Juvenile and Family Court
The Central Labor Court
The Central Tax Court
The International Trade and Intellectual Property Court (will be opened
from October 1, 1997) (Please note that appeal from those courts goes
directly to the Supreme Court.)

297

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
APPENDIX B
DECISIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DURING 1991-1996
Year

Cases
80

Prosecution
53

Non-prosecution
25

Others
2

46

24

22

—

43

19

23

1

49

28

18

3

45

24

20

1

96

70

22

4

1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Source: Office of the Attorney General.

APPENDIX C
MAIN OFFENCES FOR WHICH ALLEGED OFFENDERS WEREPROSECUTED IN 1996
Types of Cases
1. Narcotics Act
2. Gambling Act (Other Gamblings)
3. Immigration Act
4. Psychotropic Substances Act
5. Gambling Act (Illegal Lottery)
6. Offences of Theft
7. Offences Against Bodily Harm
8. Controlling Firearms Act (Licensable Firearms)
9. Miltary Service Act
10. Forestry Act, National Reservation Forest Act, National Park Act
11. Others
Total
Source: Office of the Attorney General.

298

Cases
85,883
73,10672,72745,51334,191
25,105
14,794
13,712
7,540
6,084
116,926
495,581

Percentage
17.33
14.75
14.68
9.18
6.90
5.07
2.99
2.77
1.52
1.23
23.59
100

Type of Cases

Source: Office of the Attorney General.

1992
382,797
60,5702,055,799
30,772
323
215
5,520
7,606
1,375
2,544,977

1991
383,11057,572
1,513,043
31,093
316
266
5,474
10,125
1,678
2,002,677

32,233
308
252
4,923
10,5881,827
2,238,006

1,724,844

1993
401,153
61,87831,425
383
262
5,316
6,501
986
2,397,139

1,832,604

1994
451,233
68,429COMPARISON OF CASE LOADS DURING 1991-1996

1. Alleged Offenders Sent for Prosecution
2. Alleged Offenders Not Sent for Prosecution(Excluding Settlement Cases)
3. Alleged Offenders Not Sent for Prosecution(Settlement Cases Only)
4. Unknown Offenders
5. Post-mortem Inquest
6. Representing as Counsels in Criminal Cases
7. Representing as Counsels in Civil Cases
8. Criminal Cases Submitted to the Court of Appeal
9. Criminal Cases Submitted to the Supreme Court
Total

APPENDIX D

34,391
368
189
6,565
6,637
924
2,440,023

1,837,919

1995
478,993
74,03735,541
381
218
7,725
13,1472,777
2,842,701

2,187,198

1996
504,620
91,094

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

299

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
APPENDIX ENARCOTIC CASES PROSECUTED DURING 1991-1996
Year

Total
Case
Persons
74,44381,388Conviction
Case
Persons
73,53380,281

Acquittal
Case
Persons
230
302

82,86187,79481,90586,686181

213

92,24597,89090,877

96,267305

377

109,464

116,773

107,843

114,763305

389

119,605

127,115

116,709

123,809476

575

131,396

140,589

127,197

135,325

563

730

1991
1992
1993
1994
1994
1994
Source: Office of the Attorney General.

300

SAFETY MEASURE CASES IN 1996

Note: Statistics collected during fiscal year (October-September).
Source: Office of the Attorney General.

In-Court Proceedings
SafetySafetyType of Safety Measure
Last
New
Measures Measures
Total
Pending
Cases
Total
Applied Dismissed Disposal
Pending
Cases Persons Cases Persons Cases Persons Cases Persons Cases Persons Cases Persons Cases Persons
1.Relegation
—
—
5
5
5
5
—
—
5
5
5
5
—
—
2.Prohibition to Enter a Specified Area
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
1
3
3
—
—
3.Execution of a Bond With Security——
117 152 117 152
51
68
66
84
117 152——
4.Restraint in an Institution for Treatment——
324 329 324 329 224 222 100 107 324 329——
5.Prohibition from Taking Alcohol or Narcotic Drugs 115 120 1,487 1,517 1,602 1,637 636 653 892 907 1,528 1,560 74
77
6.Prohibition to Exercise Certain Occupations 5
5
59
59
64
64
59
59
—
—
59
59
5
5
Total
122 127 1,993 2,063 2,115 2,190 972 1004 1,064 1,104 2,036 2,108 79
82

APPENDIX F

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

301

302

479,257

457,535

428,667

381,901

363,736

Conviction
364,467

98.40

98.27

98.41

98.24

98.10

Percentage
97.87

3,398

3,479

3,076

3,306

2,947

Acquittal
3,678

0.70

0.75

0.71

0.85

0.80

75

114

13

—

—

0.02

0.02

0.003

—

—

Percentage Withdrawal Percentage
0.99
—
—

4,322

4,460

3,836

3,552

4,088

Others
4,269

0.89

0.96

0.88

0.91

1.10

Percentage
1.14

JUDGMENTS OF COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE DURING 1991-1996

Source: Office of the Attorney General.

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

Year

APPENDIX G

487,052

465,588435,592

388,759

370,771

Total
372,415

100

100

100

100

100

Percentage
100

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
APPENDIX H
OFFENDERS CONVICTED IN 1996
Convicted
Sentence to Death
Life Imprisonment
Imprisonment Exceeding 10 years
Imprisonment Not Exceeding 10 years
Imprisonment Not Exceeding 3 years
Imprisonment Not Exceeding 6 months
Punishment Suspended
Fine Only
Other Punishment
Total

Persons
43
235
1,933
7,359
31,83150,602
273,544
347,947
25,926
739,420

Percentage
0.01
0.03
0.26
1.00
4.30
6.84
36.99
47.06
3.51
100

Source: Office of the Attorney General.

APPENDIX I
OFFENDERS CONVICTED BY COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE,
CLASSIFIED BY AGE, DURING 1994-1995
Age
Over 7-14 Years
Over 14-Under 18 Years
18-20 Years
Over 20-35 Years
Over 35-55 Years
Over 55 Years
Total

1994
6,524
41,386
110,026
301,717
189,463
56,042705,158

1995
9,493
45,765
111,488318,534
194,62154,120734,021

Source: Office of the Attorney General.

303

304

143,607

Total

19,203

17,642

36,845

Defendants and Others

Total

Last
Pending
Cases

Public Prosecutors

Appellants

13,147

6,405

6,742

New Cases
Cases

156,754

76,72080,034

Total
Cases

5,812

3,091

2,721

4,484

1,527

2,957

72

62

10

Convicted Acquitted Withdrawn
Cases
Cases
Cases

313

155

158

Others
Cases

2,777

1,351

1,426

New Cases
Cases

5,191

2,701

2,490

Total
Cases

1,165

608

557

976

398

578

55

42

13

Convicted Acquitted Withdrawn
Cases
Cases
Cases

Accomplishment

84

62

22

OthersCases

LIST OF CRIMINAL CASES SUBMITTED TO THE SUPREME COURT

70,315

Defendants and Others

APPENDIX J-2

73,292

Last
Pending
Cases

Accomplishment

LIST OF CRIMINAL CASES SUBMITTED TO THE COURT OF APPEAL

Public Prosecutors

Appellants

APPENDIX J-1

2,280

1,110

1,170

Total
DisposalCases

10,681

4,835

5,846

Total
DisposalCases

37,342

17,883

19,459Pending
Cases

146,073

71,88574,188Pending
Cases
RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53

Direct Control

Police investigative
officer can revitalize
the case if there is
fresh evidence tosupport the charge.

External Control

CONTROLS OVER PUBLIC PROSECUTORS– Director General of
Police Dept.
– Provincial Governor

Hierarchical Control

Internal Control

APPENDIX K

Investigation by theAnti-Corruption
OfficeDisciplinary Action

Media

Private Prosecution

Indirect Control

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

305

306

Prosecution Order

Privateprosecution

Not agree

Injured Party

Agree

Non Prosecute
Case dropped
unless there is
fresh evidence

Attorney General
to reviewNot agree

ProsecuteCase Dropped
unless there is
fresh evidence
to prove guilty

Agree

DISPOSITION OF CASES

Public Prosecutors

Non-Prosecution Order

Director General of the
Police Department
Provincial Governor

APPENDIX L

The Corrections
Department

Guilty verdict

Public Prosecutors
appealCase dismissed

CourtsRESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53