ขณะนี้อยู่ระหว่างปรับปรุง Theme ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก

ขนาดอักษร

สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 4 พ.ค. 2561, 14:18น.

Fail to admission and competitive examination for non-commissioned police officers because of having a criminal record

The phrase “being a person who misbehaves or who lacks good morals” is a legal phrase that does not define an exact meaning. As a result, it depends on the appropriate authorities to exercise their discretion to consider relevant facts and circumstances on a case by case basis, considering the honor bestowed upon government officials, the concerns of the public and the Buddhist moral code. Before the Plaintiff entered into a competitive examination for police officer, he has a record of having been convicted of a charge involving firearms, under the Act on Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Pyrotechnics and Fake Guns, B.E. 2490 (1947), which is a criminal offence. Although the Plaintiff was still a minor when he committed a crime, he was mature enough to differentiate between right and wrong and would have been aware of the results of such a crime. Additionally, since that time, he has not committed any further wrongdoings and has studied diligently and received a Bachelor degree but that cannot expunge his past from a record of misconduct and lack of good morals. Therefore, the decision of the Selection Committee of the Metropolitan Police to disqualify him on the grounds that he lacks the qualifications required for being a police officer under Section 2(2) of the Rules and Regulations of the Police Commission on Qualifications and Forbidden Characteristics for Being a Police Officer B.E. 2547 (2004) is a decision based on a lawful discretion.

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 5 เม.ย. 2561, 10:11น.

The Enchained Prisoners versus Rights and Liberties

According to Section 9 paragraph one (1) of Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999), the term “other acts” means an act exercising administrative power in compliance with the law other than the issuance of a rule or an administrative order. In other words, “other acts” is the physical exercise of administrative power or the administrative real act. When the Department of Corrections enchained prisoners under Section 14 paragraph one (3) of Penitentiary Act, B.E. 2479 (1936), it was the physical act, not the issuance of rule or administrative order. The treatment to the prisoners always deprived their rights and liberty as restricted by law. Even though Thailand, as the State party, has an obligation to practice in accordance with Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984, the treatment for the prisoners shall be in compliance with the domestic laws unless the laws were amended in accordance with such Convention. Although the use of instruments of restraint was inconvenience to the prisoners, this act was restricted by laws and under the scope of necessity. In addition, the types and sizes of instruments of restraints depending on the prisoners’ behavior did not deprive of the prisoners’ rights and liberty. Therefore, when the Department of Corrections enchained death row prisoners, it was not unlawful.

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 20 ธ.ค. 2560, 11:15น.

Time limit of a new administrative order

In considering the appeal where the competent officer fails to complete the appeal consideration within sixty days as from the date of receiving the appeal and do not notify the appellant the necessity to extend the period of time for appeal consideration pursuant to Section 45 paragraph one and two of the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996). It is deemed that the completion of sixty days for consideration is the date that the Plaintiff already take action for redress of the grievance or injury in accordance with process and procedure as provided by law and have the right to bring the plaint to the Court according to the Section 42 paragraph two of Act on Establishment of Administrative Court and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542 (1999). The plaint shall be filed to the Court within ninety days as from the date after the completion of sixty days as Section 49 of the said Act. However, the Plaintiff brought the plaint to the Court demanding to revoke the order to pay monetary damages on the lapse of time, the competent officer notified the appeal consideration and informed the right to file the plaint to the Administrative Court. The said appeal consideration was deemed to be as a new administrative order and resulted to affirm the order to pay monetary damages. Even the relief sought attached to the plaint pleaded to revoke the said order without pleading to revoke the appeal consideration, the Plaintiff brought such plaint to the Court after receiving the appeal consideration which defined that the Plaintiff intended the Court to consider that appeal consideration as well. The appellant filed the plaint to the Court pleading to revoke such order to pay monetary damages within ninety days as from the date of receiving the appeal consideration was within the time-limit pursuant to Section 49 of Act on Establishment of Administrative Court and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542 (1999).

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 17 พ.ย. 2560, 08:59น.

Exercise of Discretion to not Disclose Official Information

According to Section 11 paragraph one of the Official Information Act B.E. 2540 (1997), the responsible State agency shall provide the official information to the person making the request within a reasonable period of time. Nonetheless, if the official information is the subject to Section 15 paragraph one of the said Act, The Defendant No.2, as the responsible State agency, has the exclusive discretion either to disclose or not to disclose such official information. In this case, the documents requested to disclose by the Plaintiff were considered as the official information in regard to the complaint accusing the Plaintiff of committing a criminal offence or a breach of discipline. Such official information was a ground for carrying out further legal proceedings and appointing the fact-finding commission. When such official information was still in process of investigating, the disclosure thereof might have an adverse effect on investigation process or other relevant evidences, as well as, it would result in the decline in the efficiency of law enforcement or failure to achieve its objectives as prescribed in Section 15 paragraph one (2) of the Official Information Act B.E. 2540 (1997). Furthermore, the appointment of fact-finding commission was to preliminarily investigate whether or not the case had sufficient merit to allege that such person committed a disciplinary breach. The Plaintiff was therefore not a party in the case according to Section 31 of the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996). The Defendant No.2’s order refusing the disclosure of such official information was legitimate.