Diversion: Case Study of Pre-trial Diversion Schemes in Thailand and England

Abstract

Diversion is an alternative to the traditional or mainstream criminal justice. The aims of diversion include resolving problems in the mainstream criminal justice system such as congestion in the court system and overcrowding in prisons. Moreover, diversion promotes appropriate treatments for offenders accounting for the gravity of their crimes and individual differences. However, pre-trial diversion schemes, according to the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act B.E. 2545, the Juvenile and Family Court and Its Procedure Act B.E. 2553, and the Dispute Mediation Act B.E. 2562, faces some legal impediments. Therefore, under such laws, diversion as problem-solving mechanism cannot be implemented effectively to achieve its goals. Consequently, I conduct a comparative study of Thai and British legal systems’ diversion measures to suggest further legal amendments to pre-trial diversion schemes in Thailand. The proposed amendments are as follows: (1) modifying the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act B.E. 2545, section 19, which concerns alleged offenders who are entitled to rehabilitation plans, to include those who have committed low level drug-related offences; (2) revising the Juvenile and Family Court and Its Procedure Act B.E. 2553, section 86, to reconsider that previous convictions of child or juvenile do not preclude the use of special measures in lieu of criminal prosecution. However, past records should also be considered when making the decision to use such diversion schemes; and (3) amending the Dispute Mediation Act B.E. 2562, section 57, which examines a memorandum of agreement between an alleged offender and a victim.  Although an alleged offender has undertaken the performances as required by the agreement, the relevant prosecutor or inquiry official can attach conditions intended to modify the behavior and reduce the likelihood of re-offending.