Sherwon verdict, SAR 5 Police Station had lost the case, had to accept ‘ex-narcotics’ as a police sergeant

Sherwon verdict of the Supreme Administrative Court, Police Station 5 had lost the case, had to accept a former drug addict as a police sergeant

of the case Police Lieutenant Panya Khamrab Former police at Na Wang Police Station, Nong Bua Lamphu Province Used knives and guns to shoot teachers and young children at the childcare centre. Uthai Sawan Subdistrict Administrative Organization Uthai Sawan Subdistrict, Na Klang District, causing many injuries 38 people have died

Until the social world searches for information until the judgment (appeal) of supreme court Black Case No Or 357/2008, Red Case No Or. 2/2555 dated January 16, 2012, which Phakin Oathful a Provincial Police District Commissioner 5 is being prosecuted Subject: Disputes regarding illegal acts of government officials (judgment appeal)

In this case, the plaintiff said that The plaintiff applied for a third person competitive examination to be a police sergeant for the year 2006 and 2007, but failed to pass the examination in the field of suitability for both positions because the sub -a committee has considered the qualifications and suitability for the post considered. that The complainant is a person of bad conduct and lacking in good manners. because he had been prosecuted for an offense under the Narcotics Act 1979, Lampang Provincial Court, Department of Youth and Family, sentenced on May 1, 2000 to suspend the sentence for one year, probation for 1 year, and report every 4 months.

The complainant saw that the sub-committee’s decision was unfair. Contrary to the book of the Department of Registration of Criminal Records No. Tor Chor 0035.32/580 dated March 22, 2006, which informs the results of a joint meeting between the Royal Thai Police (SQ.) and external agencies which have decided to propose amendments to the rules for admission children; or Youth who have committed crimes have the opportunity to work or get a government service

together with the Criminal Records Registration Division the National Police Office No. Tor Chor 0035.32/155 dated 19 July 2006 informed the complainant The police have approved the information about the complainant’s arrest and criminal prosecution history from the criminal records register . The plaintiff has issued a letter dated April 10, 2007 asking the plaintiff to review the announcement of Provincial Police Region 5 as mentioned.

Subsequently, the complainant issued a letter Tor Chor Number 0021.111/1726 dated April 25, 2007 informing the result of the consideration that the case had been conducted in accordance with the National Police Act 2547, the complainant saw that the Royal Thai Police had amended r regulations and can accept children or young people who have committed crimes to have the opportunity to work. In addition, while the plaintiff was a child. And the police sergeant school will start training in May 2007, bringing the case to court.

In this regard, the court requests a judgment or order in two cases.

At one stage, the judgment revealed that The next problem that must be diagnosed is that The decision of the sub-committee to consider qualifications and suitability for the post “Not accepting” The recipient of the legal action became the student police sergeant of the year 2007 by naming the plaintiff in the account of the examiner who failed to pass the qualification.

sees that when the facts appear, while the complainant committed a crime The complainant was still young, only 16 years old. The Lampang Provincial Court, Youth and Family Department, ruled that the complainant was guilty of Narcotics Act, 1979, Section 4, Section 7, Section 8, Section 57 and Section 91 when considering age, history, conduct, intelligence, education, training, health, habits, occupation, environment, circumstances of the offense The report presents facts about children or youth Lampang Children and Youth Observation and Protection Center. and the statement of the defendant’s parents

The complainant had just committed the offense for the first time. The complainant’s parents were concerned. considered that it was appropriate to give the complainant a chance to turn himself into a good person Therefore, the prosecution of the complainant was to be suspended for a period of 1 year and the prosecutor was placed on probation for 1 year by setting probation conditions for the complainant to report to the probation officer every 4 months at a time. and prohibiting the prosecutor from being involved in drugs

From the above judgment, the court exercised discretion and did not punish the complainant. And committing a crime by a person who is 16 years old, as the prosecutor at the time, cannot claim any additional punishment under Section 94 of the Criminal Code, together with the Director of the Child and Youth Detention Center, Lampang Province. A letter dated March 27, 2006 testified that the complainant had strictly complied with the conditions of the probation during the probationary period.

Also, doctors from Chiang Rai Prachanukroh Hospital The complainant’s body has been examined. He has a medical certificate dated June 21, 2007 certifying the results of the examination proving that From the urine test, there was no methamphetamine in the urine. which shows that the complainant has been released from a drug-using condition Medicines for drug addicts should be treated as patients rather than criminals. and especially The Cabinet passed a decision on February 27, 2007 to approve the criteria for providing opportunities for AIDS patients, people with disabilities, and drug users / addicts. who was released from the condition of using drugs to work or get an education in a government agency to the government of the government agency and state enterprises to comply with

that the decision of the cabinet mentioned above will bind the sub-committee and the defendant who is an officer under The police must comply as the First Stage Administrative Court has decided in detail.

When the behavior and actions of the complainant are as they appear, the complainant cannot be considered to be misbehaving. or defects in good manners Therefore, the complainant should be given the opportunity to have the right to apply for the competitive examination. or selected to be recruited as a police officer, as a general person, in accordance with the decisions of the cabinet mentioned above

Therefore, the decision of the sub-committee not to accept the complainant to be a police sergeant for the year 2007, assuming that the complainant has the circumstances to be prosecuted until the court has given such a judgment, disqualified in accordance with item 2(2) of the Act. SEC Rules on Qualifications and Disqualifications of Being a Police Officer, BE 2547 And contrary to the decision of the cabinet and as a result, the order of the defendant who agreed to the decision of the sub-committee is an illegal order that the Administrative Court of First Instance revokes the order of the defendant .The case according to the letter Na Tor Chor 0021.111/1726 dated April 25, 2007 and the decision of the Sub-Committee which considered qualifications and suitability for the post dated April 4, 2007 that the complainant was not accepted as a police sergeant for the year 2007 and the other application to raise that The Supreme Administrative Court agreed. The plaintiff’s appeal was not heard.

Judgment stands

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.