The problems of law enforcement in the Juvenile and Family Court jurisdiction. According to Section 95 of the Juvenile and families court trail and Procedure Act B.E.2553

Abstract

              This qualitative research article studies the spirit of the law enforcement regarding the Juvenile and Family Court under Section 95. In case a child or juvenile commits an offence in his/her usual place of abode or other district, the case shall be under the jurisdiction of court in the adobe pursuant to the law. However, in case an offence is committed in other area and the proceeding in such area brings benefits to a child or juvenile, the court in such area shall have jurisdiction in that case.   

            According to the study, it was found that the Juvenile and Family Court applied the proceeding principle stating that a child or juvenile case would be assigned to a court of district the offence took place rather than the jurisdiction of court in the usual abode. A child or juvenile could not exercise the rights to criminal defense which could be contrary to the spirit of the laws of the Juvenile and Family Court. In this regard, the Section determines that the court of child or juvenile’s usual place of abode shall have exclusive jurisdiction and the local court of district the offense took place was deemed an exclusion. It caused the principle failed to bring benefits to child or juvenile duly.    

            The author argues that the law should permit the public prosecutor to assign the case to the public prosecutor in child or juvenile’s usual place of abode. Furthermore, the local court of district the offence took place should interrogate and seek clear decision to what extent the court brings benefit to child or juvenile over the court in usual place of abode.