Article 18: Territorial jurisdiction to inquire

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1016/2567 (2024)

   A dispute over whether the inquiry official was the head official in the locality under the final paragraph of Section 18, and thus the responsible official able to conclude the file under Section 140, is a factual question about who was the responsible inquiry official.

   The defendant argued that the officer who filed the detention request was not the head inquiry official under the final paragraph of Section 18, so the inquiry was unlawful and the prosecutor had no power to prosecute. The Court characterized this as a factual dispute about which local official was the responsible one entitled to conclude the file under Section 140.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4313/2560 (2017)

   Where the offense did not occur within the jurisdiction of the investigating station under Section 18 paragraph three, the inquiry is unlawful, and the prosecutor therefore has no power to prosecute under Section 120.

   The Court found that the arrest actually took place at a different time and place, so the offense was not within the jurisdiction of the Laem Chabang police under Section 18 paragraph three. The inquiry was therefore unlawful and the prosecutor had no power to prosecute under Section 120, read with the Narcotics Case Procedure Act.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4732/2560 (2017)

   The ordinary territorial rule in Section 18, which gives the power to inquire to the officials of the locality where the offence occurred, or where the alleged offender resides or was arrested, does not fix the responsible inquiry official for an offence committed outside the Kingdom. Where the deception reached the injured persons while they were abroad and the money was transferred to an account outside Thailand, the public fraud was committed outside the Kingdom, so under Section 20 the Attorney General is the responsible inquiry official, and his assignment of an investigating team made both the inquiry and the prosecution lawful.

   The defendant argued the investigation was unlawful. The Supreme Court held that the public fraud, from the telephone calls that deceived the four injured persons while they were in Australia until they transferred money to an account in Hong Kong, was an offence committed outside the Kingdom under Section 20. A police lieutenant colonel had put the matter up through the chain of command, the Attorney General had assigned the National Police Office team as the responsible inquiry officials, and that team therefore had power to investigate under Section 20 paragraph one. The investigation was lawful and the prosecutor had power to bring the case.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.