Court house death casts an ugly pall
When Supachai Kanlahasunthorn learned that the Criminal Court acquitted a defendant whom he believed killed his son two years ago in Bangkok’s Din Daeng area for “lack of evidence”, the man was devastated. He jumped to his death right after emerging from the courtroom. His tragic death triggered an avalanche of criticism of the country’s legal system, with many casting doubt about its functionality or lack thereof. It epitomises what Bangkok Post columnist Sanitsuda Ekachai wrote in her recent column as to what might have been “a legal system without justice” and an urgent need for a remedy.
Supachai’s son, Thanit, was stabbed to death at the height of Songkran celebrations as he walked on Din Daeng Road in 2016. After his untimely death, the family had little hope that the law would be on their side as the suspect was from a well-to-do family. The police’s performance upset them and the court’s verdict based on insubstantial police reports simply intensified their lack of confidence.
Because of a public suspicion which is solidly justifiable, police are revisiting the investigation, with seniors vowing to punish those involved with alleged negligence, while Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Minister Prajin Juntong has asked various state agencies to attend a meeting this week to discuss the case.
In fact, the public is wary of “weak or insufficient evidence” claims which are technically problematic. It seems to be overused, with the real culprits escaping the arm of the law.
Right after Supachai’s death, his family told the media the man had little trust in the system. He had felt police did not pay enough attention to his son’s murder case, which he thought had something to do with the suspect’s social status.
Due to the lack of trust, Supachai quit his job to pursue the investigation himself. He was said to have paid particular attention to one similar murder case involving a bakery worker who was assaulted and killed by a group of youngsters. Supachai attended every court hearing in the bakery man’s case in the hope of learning about legal technicalities that might be applied to his son’s case. According to his family, Supachai had to gather evidence that might be useful as he had no confidence in police work.
The public is wary of ‘weak or insufficient evidence’ claims which are problematic. The real culprits escape the arm of the law.
The court verdict was the last straw for the devastated man.
Initially, the police defended their work, ruling out the possibility of negligence. However, Supachai might have been right. The tragedy took place during Songkran, a time when one would think there would be many witnesses. But Din Daeng police could find only one witness who has a mental problem and is not fit enough to go to court to testify. According to the police investigation report, the CCTV at the crime scene appeared “not to be working”. The footage submitted to the court did not show what happened either. The footage was not from the crime scene but from another area nearby.
This is more than enough for the court to cite “lack of evidence” in issuing its ruling that resulted in the tragedy, as public sympathies pour in for the Kanlahasunthorn family. In fact, a number of dubious legal cases in which the arm of the law was unable to reach the culprit due to “lack of sufficient evidence”, flashed across the minds of the public.
The most high-profile one involved the son of a big-name politician who was alleged to have gunned down a decorated police officer during a raid at a city pub in 2001. As the investigation dragged on, the politician’s son eventually won the legal battle in 2004 and was acquitted because of “lack of sufficient evidence”.
The family of the slain officer decided not to appeal the court verdict amid rumours that there were out of court settlements.
Another infamous case involved a rich young man in the 2012 hit-and-run case that killed a Thong Lor police officer. Vorayuth “Boss” Yoovidhya faces several charges after he slammed a black Ferrari into the ill-fated policeman’s motorcycle on Sept 3, 2012, and dragging his body along Sukhumvit Road, before speeding away. The rich young man is still at large as police drag their feet, allowing charges to be dropped one after another when the statute of limitations expired.
There must be many other cases that, without big names, have slipped the media and public attention. It’s well known that police can be a weak link in the system, in the way they have a free hand to write investigation reports that can be insubstantial in court proceedings. Things get worse when prosecutors do not exercise their judgement and accept such dubious reports, and the court acts as a receiving end of the judicial process.
The police decision to revisit the investigation into the Kanlahasunthorn family case may be just a token gesture on their part. It may not be revived even if police find “new evidence”.
If there are irregularities, the punishment of police officers involved, while necessary, is not enough. What is needed is an overhaul of the judicial system to revive public trust.