For many years, organised crime has been considered a serious threat to the world, as it affects not only national security but also economic well-being. Moreover, it is also the cause of many serious crimes. Given its nature, it is difficult for law enforcement officials to investigate and obtain evidence which can lead to the prosecution of high-ranking members of organised crime groups. For this reason, in 2000, the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC) was introduced. Under this convention, many measures were provided to fight these serious crimes. The use of special investigative techniques, such as controlled delivery, electronic surveillance and undercover operations, has been recognised in Article 20 of the UNTOC. Therefore, members of the UNTOC, including Thailand, have to incorporate these special investigative techniques into domestic law. However, due to the different interpretations of the convention in each country, the effectiveness of the use of these special investigative techniques may vary. Furthermore, the use of these special investigative techniques may have an inevitable effect on human rights. Notably, this thesis reflects the law at April 2018. After the comparative study of the use of special investigative techniques between England and Wales and Thailand, it could be seen that the former has a better legislative approach than Thailand. In the case of special organisations to combat serious crimes, the National Crime Agency (NCA) of the UK has a higher budget, more staff and better transparency than the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) of Thailand. Moreover, in England and Wales, at the national and regional levels, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) provide double protection against the misuse of the special investigative techniques which are operated by law enforcement officials. On the contrary, in Thailand, although human rights are recognised in both the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Code, the Supreme Court is not greatly concerned about these rights, nor about the unlawful investigative proceedings. At the regional level, the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD) cannot be compared to the ECHR, because it does not have supranational institutions like the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) of the ECHR to protect the rights of the people of ASEAN. Last, but not least, in practice the patronage system and corruption are also considered to be the main problems in the investigation bureaux of the country and may affect the use of special investigative techniques.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:759977 |
| Date | January 2018 |
| Creators | Tianprasit, Tanatthep |
| Contributors | Duff, Peter ; Auchie, Derek P. |
| Publisher | University of Aberdeen |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | http://digitool.abdn.ac.uk:80/webclient/DeliveryManager?pid=238555 |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds