Criminal Liability Arising from the Use of a Copy of an Arrest Warrant After the Accused Had Already Surrendered and Been Released on Bail
ได้ครับ นี่คือฉบับภาษาอังกฤษแบบนักกฎหมายและค่อนข้างละเอียด:
Issue: Criminal Liability Arising from the Use of a Copy of an Arrest Warrant After the Accused Had Already Surrendered and Been Released on Bail
Mr. Som instituted a private criminal prosecution against Mr. Sak. After conducting a preliminary examination, the court found that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case and consequently issued a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Sak. Upon learning of the warrant, Mr. Sak voluntarily surrendered himself to the court. The court then permitted his provisional release on bail. Mr. Som was fully aware that Mr. Sak had already surrendered and that the court had granted him temporary release.
Subsequently, Mr. Sak encountered Mr. Som and mockingly challenged him to have him arrested. Enraged by such conduct, Mr. Som took a copy of the arrest warrant and requested the police to arrest Mr. Sak. Acting upon that copy of the warrant, the police arrested Mr. Sak, detained him for one day, and thereafter brought him before the court. The court then ordered Mr. Sak to be released.
The legal question is whether Mr. Som, Mr. Sak, and the arresting police officer incurred any criminal liability.
As regards Mr. Som, he had full knowledge that Mr. Sak had already surrendered to the court and had been released on bail. Nevertheless, he intentionally used the copy of the arrest warrant to procure Mr. Sak’s arrest and detention once again. Such conduct constituted an unlawful interference with the liberty of another person. Accordingly, Mr. Som was criminally liable for an offence against liberty under the Penal Code provision concerning wrongful deprivation of personal liberty. This conclusion is consistent with Supreme Court Decision No. 2160/2521.
As regards Mr. Sak, his conduct consisted merely of mocking or provoking Mr. Som by daring him to have him arrested. Such words alone did not amount to any criminal offence. Therefore, Mr. Sak incurred no criminal liability.
As regards the police officer, the officer arrested Mr. Sak under the mistaken belief that the court warrant was still operative and enforceable in the relevant manner. Since the arrest was made under a misunderstanding of fact and in purported compliance with a court warrant, the police officer did not incur criminal liability.
Conclusion:
Mr. Som was guilty of an offence against personal liberty for intentionally causing Mr. Sak to be arrested despite knowing that Mr. Sak had already surrendered and been released on bail. Mr. Sak committed no offence merely by taunting or challenging Mr. Som. The police officer also committed no offence, having acted under a mistake of fact in believing that the arrest was authorized by the court warrant.
