When the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic struck Thailand in roughly late February 2020, and quickly resulted in closed borders and internal lockdowns of varying degrees of strictness, it was inevitable that the court system would be affected. The Office of the Thai Judiciary was quick to take preventive measures, aiming to attain the highest level of safety while still striving for as little disruption as possible to the administration of justice. Official guidelines were stipulated, with courts having leeway to make adjustments as appropriate to each jurisdiction’s situation.
Predictably, soon into the pandemic there was a virtual explosion of fraud cases involving masks, gloves and antiseptic sales, followed by labour cases related to unlawful termination, guaranteeing job security for lawyers. That is not to say we have not experienced unique challenges. Safety measures, clients’ reactions to such measures, as well as new practices have made for an interesting period in Thai court history indeed.
The COVID-19 prevention measure with the most repercussions was the decision to cancel all trials for the months of March April and May 2020 in which the defendant was not imprisoned, as well as pre-trial hearings, inquiries and settlement negotiations. This presented a “double-edged sword’ effect to current and new cases. On the one hand, postponements were beneficial to cases in which the witnesses were overseas and unable to travel to Thailand due to the travel ban and would otherwise need to testify by proxy or request a continuance. On the other hand, cases that were coming very close to a resolution were suddenly extended, prolonging the agony for defendants waiting for a chance to be declared innocent, or to finally find out their sentence, and for victims to receive some closure, not to mention the likelihood of details fading from witnesses’ memories. Additionally, the new trial and hearing dates quickly filled up the remaining months of the year. Thus, initial hearings for new cases filed had to be scheduled much later than normal. For lawyers and legal teams, all this meant much placating of clients as well as planning for a busier-than-usual final quarter of the year.
Meanwhile, judgments were read as scheduled, and some minor hearings were not cancelled if the presiding judges deemed that to proceed would not a health risk and the parties involved consented. General court procedure such as lawsuit intake and internal processes related to pending cases proceeded as normal, but with some staggering of schedules to allow for social distancing. Court fees for delivery of summons for the new court dates were waived for the postponed appointments, easing the financial burdens on parties.
For the court buildings themselves, temperature screening before entry became mandatory. Some courts, such as the Central Juvenile and family court, restricted entries and exits to a 2 side doorways, and set up outdoor sinks with antiseptic soaps. Masks became standard gear as in all other public buildings.
As restrictions eased, trails resumed in June. However, measures such as temperature screening and mask wearing continued. It was common to see a speaker pull their mask down while speaking so as to be heard more clearly, but cooperation with the rules was not a problem. Courts continued to adapt to the “new normal”, notably Samutprakan Family and Juvenile Court, which hosted a groundbreaking trial via video conferencing. Previously, video conferencing was a common procedure domestically for cases in which witnesses reside across several jurisdictions, or to ease the transportation load of prisons brining inmates for initial hearings. However, most requests to conduct video conferencing overseas have been denied by presiding judges, and the ones allowed were under strict rules to have embassy staff present as witnesses, presenting a serious obstacle for those living far from Thai embassies or in the case of embassy staff being unwilling to oblige. The landmark trial at Samutprakan Family and Juvenile Court involved testimony by the defendant who was unable to travel from the United States, and could not access the Thai embassy. He was allowed to testify at the residence of a local judge, with the judge presiding as witness. Any papers he needed to sign were scanned and sent through email directly to the court clerk. Other courts have since followed suit with witnesses allowed to testify in law offices abroad with no embassy staff required. Hopefully such procedures will continue even after the COVID-19 pandemic is a thing of the past, as they are conducive to speedy trials and greatly reduce expenses.
Due to the second wave of COVID-19, cases in January and February 2021 have been postponed in the same manner as last year, making for a packed second quarter. This time around, clients are used to disruptions in their life, and the seriousness of COVID-19 has become much more apparent than in the beginning days of the pandemic. Thus, the inconvenience of a postponed court date is balanced by the peace of mind that one’s well-health is a little safer.
