The reform drive started by the junta is giving the public fresh hope it will present another opportunity to fix the justice system.
Tackling apparent injustices in the system are one of 11 areas of reform to be overseen by the National Reform Council (NRC) — to be appointed next month.
Critics say while injustice that affects the poor, marginalised, and disadvantaged has been around for years, the problem has been growing with politicians exploiting legal loopholes or ambiguities for their own gain.
Though police, prosecutors and judges share key roles in ensuring fair treatment for the public, the courts of justice are attracting more than a little criticism these days for their apparent activism in political conflicts, which has helped divide people into pro- and anti-Thaksin camps.
On the one hand are those who worry it has stepped beyond the scope of its responsibilities in delivering partisan rulings in key political disputes. On the other, some say it is doing a good job resisting moves by powerful parties to influence its work.
The judicial system has been long regarded as one of the country’s most reliable institutions in solving disputes, but after years of political tumult, judges have emerged at the centre of a public debate over whether they can maintain their impartiality.
Legal experts discussed the problem recently and suggested four solutions as part of the reforms to improve the justice system. They also want their solutions heard by the NRC.
A holistic approach covering the whole system, not just the courts.
Thammasat University’s deputy rector, Udom Ratammarit, says if the justice system is unjust, solutions must encompass all its component parts.
“Whether the court hands down fair or unfair rulings also depends on police, prosecutors and lawyers who play a part in legal proceedings,” said Mr Udom, also a contender for the National Reform Council in law and justice affairs.
The country should not depend on the courts as the only institution for coping with disputes. It should strengthen the roles of other key parties in the justice system by raising their standards to the same level of the court.
The public should also help take care of the court by making sure it does not come under undue influence, Mr Udom said.
He was worried some wealthy people may be using money to destroy the court’s reliability. If society, together with the court itself, is not aware of this risk, the judicial system may “lose its immunity”.
One case that reflects Mr Udom’s concern occurred in 2008 when three members of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s legal team were found guilty of contempt of court.
They handed a snack box stuffed with two million baht in cash to ML Thitipong Chumpoonut, a court official attached to the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders, which was considering the Ratchada land case against Thaksin.
The lead lawyer in the team was Pichit Chuenban, who represented Thaksin in the case.
ML Thitipong refused to accept the snack box and the Supreme Court later ruled against the trio. It suspected they might have been trying to deliver a bribe.
Though Thaksin was eventually found guilty of power abuse in the Ratchada case in which his ex-wife Khunying Potjaman na Pombejra bought a 33-rai plot of land in the Ratchada area, the snack box scandal raised worries that his legal team had attempted to interfere with the court’s duties.
Mr Udom agrees the court needs stronger protection, but to ensure complete fairness, all parties in the justice system must be protected.
“If some of them come under influence, the whole justice system will be affected,” he said.
Independence for the courts and the Office of the Attorney-General.
Deputy city police chief Amnuay Nimmano says political influence is always a potential problem given the close ties between the force and the government.
The police report to the deputy prime minister while another justice agency, the Department of Special Investigation, is overseen by the justice minister.
These agencies must become independent organisations like the courts and the Office of the Attorney-General, he proposed.
“No one should become what they are today because of someone else’s help,” said Pol Maj Gen Amnuay, apparently referring to a 2012 case when a framed note on a wall of the office of former city police chief Kamronwit Thoopkrachang made headlines.
On a visit to former prime minister Thaksin Shinwatra, Pol Lt Gen Kamronwit asked Thaksin to pin a new police rank insignia to his uniform following a promotion.
The note read: “I am what I am today because of you, brother.” Pol Lt Gen Kamronwit later clarified the remark, saying it merely reflected his personal ties to Thaksin, not any preferences he might have received in his job.
These incidents cannot be overlooked as they result in a gradual decrease in public trust in the justice system, all the way from police, who are the first to handle disputes, to judges, who hand down rulings on them.
A new independent agency to protect the courts.
Election commissioner Thirawat Thirarotwit joined Mr Udom in suggesting better protection for the court against dirty tricks. He suggested a new independent agency to keep a close watch on the courts to stop any attempts to bribe court officials.
The agency will act like the National Anti-Corruption Commission but will be attached to the court, he said.
Experts working in the justice system and those from the National Intelligence Agency should be invited to join, he added.
Mr Thirawat, also an NRC candidate, admitted past political conflicts made the court prone to criticism by certain political groups which accused the judges of judicial activism.
Late last year, the Constitutional Court ruled against a Pheu Thai-sponsored charter amendment bill aiming to establish a fully elected Senate.
The Pheu Thai Party criticised the ruling, saying it violated the constitution. It said the court was wrong to accept complaints against the charter amendment for consideration.
It also accused the court of interfering with the legislature’s power when it ruled that MPs broke House regulations by voting on the draft on behalf of others.
Mr Thirawat said that no matter how well court explains its rulings, those who emerge on the losing side will always criticise.
“But to decide whether the court’s rulings meet certain standards requires educated people to read verdicts carefully,” he said. “Whether they are just or not will then become apparent.’’
Better access to justice for the public and better treatment of their grievances.
Another two legal experts are also demanding changes to the justice system, but they direct their focus to the public’s access to fair treatment.
NACC member Vicha Mahakhun said a form of “community justice” was needed to deal with legal disputes at village level by giving legal advice to those involved and letting them know how their cases are proceeding.
“Once villagers are given this service, their disputes may end in their communities without the need to forward them to the authorities in Bangkok,” said Mr Vicha, also an NRC candidate.
Human rights lawyer Somchai Hom-laor suggested the government underwrite equal access to legal rights, including paying for bail and help from capable lawyers.
In many legal cases, the rich have an advantage over the poor as they are usually granted bail and can afford top lawyers.
This can make people feel as though they are treated unfairly in the justice system, Mr Somchai said.