Bankok (Thailand) Post  [Printer-friendly version]
May 9, 2006

SPECIAL COURT RULES FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Sweeping reforms to speed up cases

[Rachel's introduction: "Mr Apichart said courts may put the burden
of proof on defendants [in environmental lawsuits] rather than the
plaintiffs, as in normal law suits. If this practice is adopted, it
would be the first time Thai courts agree to follow the so-called
precautionary principle long advocated by environmentalists, who
argue it is too much of a burden for damaged parties to prove
wrongdoing by powerful offenders."]

By Bhanravee Tansubhapol

The Supreme Court is poised to make sweeping procedural changes to
speed up handling of environmental cases. This includes placing the
burden of proof on defendants, broadening the court ruling to cover
all damaged parties and cutting court fees for poor plaintiffs, a high
court official said yesterday.

"We would like environmental cases to be special cases because they
affect the life, health and well-being of the public. If the court
deliberation is slow or has to wait for any side-effects to emerge it
may be too late for the environment or people's lives," said Apichart
Sukhagganond, president of the environmental division of the Supreme
Court.

Mr Apichart said each case affecting the environment should take no
more than three years to resolve instead of more than five years now
in most cases.

More than 1,000 environmental cases currently await Supreme Court
judgments. Most are handled by the 10 Appeals Courts around the
country but only four of them have an environmental division attached.

The green light has now been given to the Criminal Court in each
province to set up an environmental division to help speed up
environmental cases.

"Environmental cases should be concluded as quickly as possible," he
said. To expedite the process, the court is considering moving
environmental cases only through the Criminal Court and the Supreme
Court, skipping the Appeals Court.

The court fee for poor plaintiffs could be lowered or waived to enable
poor people to file legal action against industrial offenders, said Mr
Apichart.

Normally, plaintiffs must post as much as 200,000 baht to cover court
fees if they demand large compensation. This means legal action is out
of reach of many who claim to suffer consequences from environmental
damage.

Mr Apichart said courts may put the burden of proof on defendants
rather than the plaintiffs, as in normal law suits.

If this practice is adopted, it would be the first time Thai courts
agree to follow the so-called precautionary principle long advocated
by environmentalists, who argue it is too much of a burden for damaged
parties to prove wrongdoing by powerful offenders.

Another change that will have a major impact on offenders is the
broadening of the court ruling on a single case to cover all damaged
parties.

"This will help minimise the number of cases coming to court and all
damaged parties will get the same level of compensation, as in
bankruptcy cases," said Mr Apichart. Only the plaintiffs now benefit
from court rulings in their favour, he said.

The case of damage to Maya Bay on Koh Phi Phi Lei caused by the making
of the Hollywood film The Beach would be a good case study for all
criminal court judges, most of whom have little experience in
environmental cases.

In that case, local administrations and environmentalists in Krabi
filed suits against senior environmental officials, 20th Century Fox
Studios, which produced the film starring Leonardo DiCaprio, and the
studio's Thai agent for altering the bay's environment to fit the
movie's script.

The Supreme Court is expected to deliver a final verdict this year.

Mr Apichart said environmental law should be a compulsory subject for
all university law students.

"We still lack a lot of environmental judges. One reason we set up
the environmental division is to let all judges see the importance of
this subject and let them learn from it," said Mr Apichart.

Copyright Copyright The Post Publishing Public Co., Ltd. 2006