คดีละเมิดอำนาจศาลกับหลักความยุติธรรมในกระบวนพิจารณาคดีของศาล

Abstract

‘Contempt of Court’ is a criminal offense that is significant to trial procedure. This offense is regulated for the purpose of sustaining respectful environment of trial procedure. However, its effectiveness seems to be suspected due to there has no precious definition for such offense. Therefore, a whole process is under judge’s interpretation and consideration. This offense, Contempt of Court, in foreign countries such as in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Japan, is similar in legislative purposes. However, in term of legal enforcement, it is different due to diversity of social context and culture. Likewise, this offense under Thai jurisprudence was influenced from foreign countries but it has been adapted and enforced regarding to Thai culture and local identities. From research in Supreme Court’s decrees, it could be noticed that since political revolution in 1990’s, Supreme Court had set criteria, jurisprudence, and court procedure in particular. Moreover, they are specially regulated in the Code of Judicial Conduct applied to all levels of court. Significantly, the court owns an absolute judicial power since every step of legal procedure is solely under the court’s decision. According to reasons made to judgments, it can be noticed that legal enforcement of such offense applied in each case was inconstant. Especially, an interpretation of court was ambiguous such as the interpretation to the scope of conducts that implies to “discourteous behavior”, or to the scope of area that implies to “in the area of court”. In addition, trial procedure seems to increase tendency to abuse the possessed power of court. In particular, in the case that judges are beneficiary, or directly or indirectly involve in the circumstance where intermediary status and justice of court can be suspected. In other word, defendants to the Contempt of Court cannot predict to both the steps of court procedure and the severity of legal punishment. Therefore, the defendants’ right is rarely protected in contrary to the basic rules of right’s protection that citizen should be provided by the nation. Unpredictable enforcement of such offense not only affects to fairness of parties in litigation, but enforcement itself is also a dominant obstacle to the law enforcement investigation. As consequence, these may cause arbitrary and capricious decision making. For example, a judge abusively applies his broaden judicial power, or a verdict is made without reasonable ground. These defects are against the rules of justice, a principle rule for judiciary organization of the nation.