The Supreme Court has proposed an idea for an organic law on criminal procedures for cases involving political office holders which seeks to revoke defendants' rights to appeal if they flee during a trial.
Meechai: There's no need to rush
The proposed law, one of the 10 laws drawn up by the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) following the public endorsement of the charter, is necessary because the new charter has widened grounds for appeal for political office holders in a bid to conform to international practices.
It is being put forward for opinion gathering hosted by the CDC.
One of the key elements involves Section 63 which says if the defendant, who is not being detained, wants to appeal a ruling, he or she must lodge an appeal to a court official in person otherwise the appeal is rejected.
Another key element involves Section 33 which says if the accused or the defendant flees during legal proceedings or during a trial, the statute of limitations on the case is suspended.
Athikhom Inthuputhi, secretary-general of the Office of the Judiciary, said the draft bill was prompted by the change in the new charter.
"Several defendants didn't show up to hear a ruling even though they appeared regularly during the trial. When they flee, that period shouldn't count toward the statute of limitations. They shouldn't benefit from it," he said.
CDC chairman Meechai Ruchupan said the bill's challenge is to make sure the procedures are not either rushed, which might result in incomplete investigation and unfairness, or delayed.
Mr Meechai said the CDC is considering if cases against political office holders should proceed if the accused or the defendants flee.
One possible option being mulled is trial in absentia.
"Some people suggest that the statute of limitations should be suspended if the accused flee," he said. "It sounds good, but evidence and witnesses can disappear if we wait too long. They might be eventually be acquitted due to a lack of evidence.
"The accused should be allowed to fight the charges. They may or may not come to court. They can appoint a lawyer to represent them."
However, Mr Athikhom said the accused should at least appear before the court to answer the charges and acknowledge the beginning of the court procedures.
If they fail to show up as the trial proceeds, that means they are waiving their rights to defend themselves, he said.
CDC member Pattara Khumphitak said with Section 63 and Section 33 the accused who flee will not be able to exploit the statute of limitations.
Several participants in the forum have proposed that there should be no statute of limitations in corruption cases.
Thammanoon Ruangdit, deputy secretary-general of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, said the agency's concern is about the expiry of the statute of limitations.
"The NACC filed a lawsuit against against the accused but the person fled and couldn't be arrested until the time limits expired," he said. "He was just let off the hook."
He said the NACC would like the organic law to address this problem.