Authority of a Public Prosecutor Previously Handling the Case to Continue Proceedings After Transfer of Venue
Authority of a Public Prosecutor Previously Handling the Case to Continue Proceedings After Transfer of Venue
In this criminal case, Mr. Somsak had originally conducted the prosecution before the Samut Prakan Provincial Court while serving as an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Samut Prakan. The case was subsequently transferred for trial to the Lamphun Provincial Court. Thereafter, Mr. Somsak was reassigned to official duty in Chiang Mai Province. Owing to the complexity and sensitivity of the matter, the Samut Prakan Prosecutor considered that replacing him with another prosecutor might adversely affect the conduct of the case. Accordingly, a written authorization was issued empowering Mr. Somsak, despite his transfer to Chiang Mai, to continue handling the prosecution for the benefit of the service and the proper administration of justice. Mr. Somsak therefore appeared to proceed with the case before the Lamphun Provincial Court. However, the Lamphun Provincial Court refused to allow him to act in that capacity.
In my view, the court’s order was incorrect. Since Mr. Somsak had previously handled the case from the outset and had been expressly assigned in writing to continue the prosecution, he remained legally competent to act. His authority did not cease merely because he had been transferred to another provincial office, particularly where such continued participation was formally authorized for official purposes and to prevent prejudice to the case. On the facts given, his appearance and conduct of the prosecution were therefore lawful.
The proper legal conclusion is that the Lamphun Provincial Court should have permitted Mr. Somsak to continue acting in the case. The refusal to do so was not legally justified, because Mr. Somsak retained prosecutorial authority under Section 12(3) of the Public Prosecutors Act, B.E. 2498 (1955).