Remote Criminal Prosecution: Punishment by Process and Legal Problems

Abstract

This article examines the phenomenon of remote criminal prosecution, referring to the practice of filing criminal complaints or initiating prosecutions in jurisdictions geographically distant from the accused person’s place of residence or from locations meaningfully connected to the alleged offence. The practice has become increasingly visible in Thailand since 2020, particularly in cases involving political expression on social media. Such venue choices raise concerns about fairness in criminal proceedings, as they may impose significant burdens on defendants in terms of travel, financial costs, access to legal counsel, and the ability to effectively prepare a defence.

            The article analyses this phenomenon as a structural issue within Thailand’s criminal justice system. It reviews the relevant domestic legal framework, including the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2560 (2017), the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Royal Thai Police Regulation on Case Transfer and Consolidation B.E. 2565 (2022). These provisions are considered in light of international human rights standards, particularly the right to a fair trial under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the principles concerning proximity to home and contact with the outside world reflected in the Nelson Mandela Rules.

            Drawing on empirical observations of cases since 2020, the article shows that remote prosecutions appear most prominently in politically sensitive cases involving online expression. In several instances, the choice of jurisdiction appears to have imposed substantial procedural burdens on the accused.

            The article argues that such practices may result in what can be described as “punishment by process,” whereby the burdens created by the criminal process itself function as a form of sanction even in the absence of a final conviction. It therefore calls for a reconsideration of the interpretation and application of rules governing investigative and judicial jurisdiction, as well as the exercise of discretion by state authorities, in order to align criminal procedure more closely with fair trial guarantees and international human rights standards.