Thaksin Shinawatra may have breathed a sigh of relief after a third complaint over his jail avoidance was dismissed – but the Supreme Court’s decision came with a sting in the tail.
Legal experts say the former prime minister is now at risk of imprisonment if the Department of Corrections cannot prove he was facing “life-threatening” health issues when shifted from prison to a private suite at the Police General Hospital upon his return from 15 years of self-exile.
The former premier spent six months in the hospital suite before being released on parole in February last year.
Thaksin had faced eight years in prison after being convicted in three corruption cases. However, upon his return to Thailand on August 22, 2023, his term was cut to one year by royal pardon.
He was transferred to the hospital on the very same day over an unspecified health emergency. His 180-day hospital stay, followed by parole release, sparked a widespread outcry, with critics noting he had not spent a single day behind bars.
Complaints were made to various agencies over alleged irregularities and preferential treatment, but no concrete action was taken.
Thaksin’s lawyers and the ruling Pheu Thai Party argued that Thaksin’s sentence was handled in full accordance with the law and his hospital transfer was beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
The former premier is widely regarded as the patriarch and de facto leader of Pheu Thai, a post officially held by his daughter, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra.
Rare court inquiry
The Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Officeholders on April 30 dismissed a third petition by former Democrat MP Charnchai Issarasenarak seeking an investigation of Thaksin’s hospital transference, ruling that he was not the damaged party.
However, the court did take the unusual step of ordering an inquiry into whether its prison sentence against Thaksin had been properly implemented by relevant authorities.
“When it appears to the court that the enforcement of its verdict may not comply with the detention order issued upon the final ruling, the court has the authority to conduct an inquiry and issue orders as deemed appropriate,” the April 30 judgement said.
The court has given Bangkok Remand Prison, the Department of Corrections and the Police General Hospital 30 days to provide written explanations of why Thaksin was shifted to the hospital just hours after setting foot in prison.
The court order identified the plaintiffs as the Office of the Attorney General and the National Anti-Corruption Commission, instead of Charnchai. However, Charnchai’s petition has been sent to relevant parties for reference.
The inquiry hearing has been set for June 13.
A tale of two laws
The Department of Corrections defended its handling of Thaksin’s case by citing a 2017 amendment to the Corrections Act, which permits inmates with serious illness to be detained outside prison.
Justice Minister Tawee Sodsong backed the department’s actions, noting that other inmates had served time in hospitals in recent decades. He added that the corrections agency did not need court approval to transfer Thaksin.
However, Charnchai argued that the Corrections Department is required to comply with Article 246 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that the relevant court must be notified if a detainee’s remand term is suspended due to insanity, a life-threatening health issue, or the delivery and care of a baby.
He added that, in law, the detainee’s time outside prison is not considered as served jail time.
Senior public prosecutor Poramet Intarachumnum said the Corrections Department should have sought court permission before shifting Thaksin from prison, as per the Criminal Procedure Code.
Possible scenarios
Assoc Prof Jade Donavanik, a legal scholar who helped draft Thailand’s Constitution, said that if the court finds Thaksin’s health issue did not warrant a six-month hospital stay, it will likely order him back to prison for one year. This scenario could also result in punishment for officials on grounds of malfeasance.
Jade said it was even possible that the court could order Thaksin to serve the original eight-year sentence if it finds that his royal pardon petition contained untruths.
Thaksin’s petition reportedly expressed his regret for the crimes he committed, along with respect for the Thai justice system.
Asst Prof Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, a senior lecturer in law at Thammasat University, said he expected the court to look into evidence of whether Thaksin was so ill that he needed to stay at the Police General Hospital for 180 days, with no improvement in his condition that would allow him to be moved back to Bangkok Remand Prison.
Prinya said that a lack of available evidence would signal that relevant officials had violated the Corrections Act by permitting Thaksin to serve his sentence outside of prison even after his health improved.
“This would mean that the court verdict [on Thaksin’s imprisonment] had not been implemented, so he needs to be sent back to prison,” the academic said. He added that if such evidence were available, it would strengthen Thaksin’s case. But without it, he cannot avoid serving prison time.
Third time lucky?
Charnchai’s two previous petitions, filed in December 2023 and February 2024, had been dismissed. He filed his third petition with the Supreme Court in January this year.
The court upheld its original 2023 ruling on February 15 last year, arguing that the enforcement of its imprisonment order and the decision to allow Thaksin to receive medical treatment outside prison were within the Corrections Department’s purview.
The verdict also said it was beyond the court’s jurisdiction to rule on whether the Corrections Department’s handling of Thaksin’s sentencing was legal.
However, the three judges who oversaw the previous petitions have since been replaced by a new panel of five Supreme Court judges, who will preside over the fresh inquiry.
All eyes are now on the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Officeholders, which is expected to rule next month on the fate of one of Thailand’s most powerful political figures.
