The road accident of celebrity Anna Reese in Bangkok was quite a big news story earlier this year garnering quite a lot of interest on social media.
The case is interesting because it features a sort of unofficial judicial role that the Thai police sometimes serve in cases.
The facts of the case run as follows,
Thai-English model and actress Anna Reese, 28, was driving a Mercedes-Benz at about 100 kph at 3am in the morning when a motorcycle allegedly cut in front of her causing her to lose control of her car which then ran off the road into a parked police car killing a policeman who happened to be sleeping in the car (see here).
The way this high-profile case played out was that the police oversaw a negotiated settlement over compensation between Anna Reese and the family of the deceased.
After two rounds of negotiation the two sides settled for an undisclosed amount of compensation but Anna Reese still faced criminal charges for reckless driving leading to the death of others.
The family initially asked for 7.2 million baht, later reduced to 6.2 million baht, 1.2 million to be paid by Anna’s insurance company. Anna Reese initially offered 2 million baht which would make 3.2 million with the insurance money. The final agreed amount was not made public (source here).
IN OTHER COUNTRIES?
In other countries such as the US, one might expect a court room with a thorough fact-finding overseen by a judge or prosecutor.
The role performed by the police here seems more of a role that would be performed by a judge or a prosecutor.
The negotiated settlement is in some ways similar to what goes on in a civil tort case behind the scenes in the US.
But in the Anna Reese case, the uncertain future outcome of a criminal court case that the police will collect the evidence for, hangs over her head also, and one might surmise that this sensitive issue probably factors into what amount is obtained in the negotiated settlement.
CHEAP SOLUTION BUT IS JUSTICE SERVED?
Certainly, a negotiated settlement with the police would be cheaper than a lengthy court case, so that would be one benefit of police involvement in this legal role.
Furthermore, the public at large seemed to have no problem with police adjudication of the case with social media actively supporting the family of the deceased policeman and demanding a greater settlement.
But then someone might object, what law gives the police the authority to perform this role?
How could one possibly get all the evidence presented and make a thorough fact-finding with such an informal process at the police station?
The system may be cheap but is justice really served?
Furthermore, can anyone even evaluate whether justice is served or not, since none of the details of the negotiated settlement are revealed including whether the police received a commission for their services (i.e. a bribe and corruption).
In other words, this informal system has no transparency and no accountability to the public.
Transparency and accountability could be considered the core issue as far as police reform are concerned (see here).
300,000 BAHT TO VICTIM FOR STABBING
On a personal note, the author became privy to an alleged police settlement in a criminal case relevant to his personal safety (though no doubt none of the sources providing this information would publicly confirm it, a problem with lack of police transparency).
On New Years day several years ago the father of the child of the person who was once my Thai partner, but actually no longer her partner and actually married to someone else, stabbed a man he had caught flirting with the said woman.
The alleged settlement to get out of jail was 300,000 baht paid to the victim.
Once again, from one standpoint this could be considered a cheap and effective form of justice.
The perpetrator was punished and the victim compensated with civil and criminal remedies combined into a sort of "blood money."
However, in the best interests of the public, society and more specifically myself who might be next victim of his stabbing, were perhaps not well served by this quick and cheap informal legal decision-making by the police.
News of many similar cases with cash settlements spread by word-of-mouth through the news grapevine one typically finds in provincial Thailand, some of the cases being quite high-profile such as the murder of Christy Sarah Jones on 10 August, 2000 in Chiang Mai. The case received widespread national and overseas press coverage, but remains unsolved with periodic inquiries on progress made by the British police to the Thai police spurring renewed interest by the police.
UNOFFICIAL LEGAL FUNCTIONS
So to summarize, we might say that Thai police have an unofficial judicial function not directly mandated by the law in many kinds of legal cases, especially road accident cases.
Thai police evaluate the evidence and either dictate or negotiate a settlement in which the party that bears responsibility for the accident pays the victim.
If one walks casually into a police station, one is very likely to encounter such informal settlements going on 24-7.
This is what happened in plain view of the media and the public in the high-profile Anna Reese road accident case earlier this year.
This widespread informal legal practice begs for further documentation and analysis from the broad perspective of sociology of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment