THE ROLE OF THE COURTS IN BAIL DECISIONS: BALANCING THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND THE EFFICIENCY OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Abstract

Pretrial release of suspects or defendants in criminal proceedings constitutes a fundamental mechanism of the criminal justice system, as it is directly linked to the protection of the right to liberty under the presumption of innocence. At the same time, the State bears the responsibility to safeguard the efficiency of criminal proceedings and the public interest, particularly with regard to preventing flight, interference with evidence or witnesses, and the commission of further harm to society. This article examines the role of the courts in decisions on pretrial release, analyzes the exercise of judicial discretion in balancing the right to liberty against the efficiency of criminal proceedings, and proposes approaches for improving the pretrial release system in accordance with the rule of law and human rights principles. The study finds that, although Thai law recognizes the right to apply for pretrial release and treats pretrial detention prior to a final judgment as an exceptional measure, the pretrial release system in practice continues to face significant structural limitations. These include 1) An overreliance on financial bail as the primary risk - control mechanism, 2) The absence of clear and systematic normative standards governing the exercise of judicial discretion, and 3) Constraints in decision - support mechanisms, such as risk assessment tools and reliable empirical data. These limitations result in unequal access to pretrial release and tend to skew the balancing process toward unnecessary restrictions on liberty. Accordingly, strengthening the role of the courts in pretrial release decisions should focus on reducing dependence on economic bail, promoting the use of less restrictive alternative measures, developing consistent standards for the exercise of judicial discretion, and enhancing systematic decision - support mechanisms. Such reforms would enable a more appropriate balance between the right to liberty and the efficiency of criminal proceedings, consistent with the rule of law in the long term.