Article 87: Limits on pre-charge detention and remand

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4487/2560 (2017)

   Section 87, read with section 3 of the Narcotics Case Procedure Act B.E. 2550, empowers the court to issue a warrant detaining a suspect during the investigation where that is necessary for the investigation or for bringing the charge. Where the accused is already lawfully detained in another case before the same court at the time the charge is filed, he is already within the court's power, and the fact that the inquiry official did not apply for a remand warrant in this case does not deprive the prosecutor of authority to prosecute. Separately, where two offences are committed by the same person and are connected, section 24 allows them to be charged together at the provincial court and no application for successive filing is required.

   The defendant was charged with consuming methamphetamine, an offence within the district court's jurisdiction, and with unlicensed possession. The Supreme Court held that although the two are separate offences, they were committed by the same person and were connected, so under section 24 with section 3 of the Narcotics Case Procedure Act B.E. 2550 the prosecutor could charge both together at the provincial court without applying for successive filing, and the Act applying district court procedure in provincial courts B.E. 2520 did not apply. On the section 87 point, the trial court had earlier sent the defendant for addiction assessment and he had been returned because he was being prosecuted in another case; at the time this charge was filed he was prosecuted and detained in that other case before the same court, so he was already within the court's power. The inquiry official's failure to seek a remand warrant in this case therefore did not deprive the prosecutor of authority to prosecute, and the charge was filed within the limitation period. Both courts below had dismissed for want of authority; the Supreme Court set their judgments aside and directed the trial court to accept the charge.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 8484/2549 (2006)

   The chief judge of a court has no duty to review another judge's exercise of discretion on an application for provisional release. A judge who refuses release after weighing the matters listed in Section 108, including the gravity of the charge, the circumstances of the case and the inquiry official's objection, is exercising discretion on the material in the file and is not persecuting the applicant.

   The plaintiff complained about the refusal of his application for provisional release during the investigation. The Supreme Court held the judge had properly weighed the matters listed in Section 108, taking the inquiry official's objection into account alongside the gravity of the charge and the circumstances, so the refusal was a proper exercise of discretion on the material in the file. The value of the security offered, 542,640 baht, was only one of the matters to be considered. The chief judge of the provincial court had no duty to review that exercise of discretion.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 3502/2542 (1999)

   Where the inquiry official states real grounds for further remand, such as ten witnesses still to be examined on the first application and six more on the second, together with awaiting the result of the suspect's fingerprint check, and the suspect does not object, there is proper cause to allow continued custody and the order is lawful under Section 87 paragraph four. A later allegation that the suspect was assaulted into confessing does not make a remand order that was lawful when made unlawful.

   The suspect asked for the two remand orders to be revoked, saying he had been assaulted and threatened into confessing. The Supreme Court held the orders lawful: the inquiry official had given real grounds each time, the suspect had not objected, and whether the confession could be relied on and whether the investigation was lawful were matters for the trial. His application to have the point referred to the Constitutional Court also failed, because he was complaining of what the inquiry officials had done, not that any provision of law conflicted with the Constitution.

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