The collapse of the two cases against the Democrats on procedural technicalities has caused some consternation among police and judicial officials. There is growing concern that future prosecutions may be jeopardized by the failure to follow due process in the strictest possible manner.

Two charges were brought against the Democrat Party: one for alleged misuse of government funds that are given to all parties for electioneering purposes, and one for allegedly accepting an illegal donation from a private company. The first charge was dismissed on the grounds that the Election Commission took longer then the statutory 15 days to file charges and the second because it was the Election Commission who brought charges and not the Political Party Registrar (who also happens to be Chair of the Election Commission and is clearly sort of a head or two to wear all his different hats).

A quick and dirty audit of procedures at a Bangkok police station (whose methods of work are thought to be typical) resulted in almost all prosecutions filed over a 3-month period being withdrawn ‘for review’. It was feared that, based on the precedents of the Democrats’ cases, any defence lawyer worth his salt would have no difficulty in getting charges thrown out on numerous technical irregularities.

Many cases involved the use of unauthorized personnel in entering the original charges in the daily police ledger. By police regulations, these must be recorded by hand, in Thai and the duty regularly devolves onto officers close to retirement who lack the necessary zeal for the more energetic things the police have to do, like investigate crimes, or wave their arms at traffic.

However they do need to be able to do two things well. One is to write in a legible hand; the second is to stay awake. And many, sadly, find even this too much for them. The answer has been to rely on the young woman (not even a police officer) who runs the reception desk. Cheerful, diligent, and with an exemplary schoolgirl script, her reports are far more accurate and legible than the snoozing officers next door could ever manage.

Even when they have had to write entries themselves, the responsible officers were found to have perfected the art of forging the investigating officers’ signatures. This obviated the need to get out of their chairs and go and find the officer concerned.

Others have been looking at the tight time-frame in which the Election Commission was required to bring charges. The statute of limitations for most crimes runs into years and years and while well-connected defendants can still expect to fend of prosecution for indefinite periods, the strain can be telling.

Just ask former Interior Minister Snoh Thienthong, who suffered 20 nail-biting years before escaping punishment over the Alpine Golf Course scandal on yet another convenient technicality.

MPs have been looking into this and are unhappy that the law governing criminal procedures against political office holders has no statutory limitation. They feel that this constitutes unfair discrimination against them and have proposed a ‘sell-by’ date for political crimes, just as for other offences. The exact limit is still being negotiated but the political classes appear to be coalescing on a period something close to the 15 days imposed on the Election Commission.

Another group concerned about possible prosecutions with the end of the Emergency Decree are the military. Having grown accustomed to torturing, illegally detaining and just putting themselves about, they are feeling uncomfortable at having their immunity from prosecution withdrawn.

To prevent the awful possibility that soldiers will be held responsible for their actions, the Judge Advocate General’s Department has proposed the novel legal concept of a negative statute of limitations.

According to this idea, inspired by the Tom Cruise film ‘Minority Report’, prosecutors would be required to file charges against any military personnel a specified number of days, months or even years before the offence was committed. In this way, military officers would enjoy effective impunity.

As long as they keep their mouths shut ahead of time.