Bangkok Legal Service

In this case, Miss Doris, an American national, entered Thailand for the purpose of performing in a public entertainment event. During her stay in Thailand, she became the victim of a robbery committed by Mr. A. Subsequently, police officers arrested Mr. A together with the stolen property and delivered him to the inquiry official for criminal proceedings.

During the course of the investigation, the inquiry official learned that Miss Doris was about to return to the United States and would be unavailable to testify at the criminal trial in Thailand at a later stage. Consequently, the inquiry official requested the public prosecutor to bring Miss Doris before the court in advance in order to preserve her testimony as evidence for future criminal prosecution against Mr. A.

If I were the public prosecutor, I would approve and proceed with the request of the inquiry official because such action is lawful, necessary, and consistent with the principles of criminal procedure and the administration of justice.

The authority of the public prosecutor is not limited merely to issuing orders to prosecute or not to prosecute a criminal case. As the representative of the State and guardian of public justice, the prosecutor also has the duty to ensure that material evidence and witness testimony are properly preserved so that the administration of justice may proceed effectively and fairly.

Under the Thai Criminal Procedure Code, together with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code applicable through Section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecutor may petition the court to take testimony in advance where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the witness may later become unavailable or difficult to examine during trial proceedings. In this matter, Miss Doris is a foreign national who is about to depart Thailand permanently, making it highly difficult, impractical, and costly to secure her appearance before the court in the future. Her testimony therefore constitutes evidence that should be preserved in advance.

Furthermore, the taking of testimony in advance does not violate the fundamental principle that testimony in criminal proceedings must generally be given openly before the accused in court. Section 172 of the Thai Criminal Procedure Code permits the accused or suspect to attend and observe the examination of witnesses. Therefore, the rights of the accused are adequately protected, particularly the right to confrontation and the opportunity to challenge or cross-examine the witness.

The preservation of testimony in advance also serves the interests of justice and judicial efficiency. If the testimony were not recorded before Miss Doris departed Thailand, the prosecution might later face serious evidentiary difficulties, potentially resulting in the loss of critical witness evidence and impairing the court’s ability to ascertain the truth.

Accordingly, the prosecutor should submit a motion to the court requesting the advance examination of Miss Doris as a witness, with notice given to the suspect so that procedural fairness and the rights of defense are fully maintained. Such action is lawful, reasonable, and consistent with both procedural justice and the effective enforcement of criminal law.