A RECONSIDERATION OF A NON-PROSECUTION ORDER

Abstract

This independent study aimed to 1) investigate the history of the criminal prosecution system, principles of the criminal prosecution,criteria in making a prosecution order in Thailand and foreign countries, as well as 2) examined the problems in exercising discretion to make a non-prosecution order and 3) suggested a guideline for the reconsideration of a wrong non-prosecution order. This research was a qualitative study and employed the documentary research method. In Thailand, the opportunity prosecution was employed as a principle for the criminal prosecution. The public prosecutors were authorized to issue a prosecution order or non-prosecution order based upon their decision. Their prosecutorial discretion must be under both The Code of Criminal Procedure and the Regulation of the Office of the Attorney General in Criminal Sases B.E. 2563. Nevertheless, a wrong non-prosecution order should be reconsidered and mended. This was a problem since there is no positive law regarding the reconsideration of a wrong non-prosecution order. In England, there was a code and legal guidance for prosecutor’s reconsideration and amendment of the wrong non-prosecution order. In Germany and France, there were not written laws regarding the reconsideration of a wrong non-prosecution, but they had principles that the prosecutors could follow. So the researcher recommended the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Regulation of the Office of the Attorney General in Criminal Cases B.E. 2563 so that the prosecutors would be authorized to reconsider and amend the wrong non-prosecution order even though such order was ultimate.