This article examines how Thai courts of the first instance deal with run-of-the-mill criminal cases. How do judges deal with criminal trials of a rather routine nature, often involving defendants from ethnic minorities and reflecting the particular conditions in the provinces concerned? Drawing on participant observation and interview research conducted mainly in two provinces in different regions of the country, the article examines the challenges faced by judges and court officials in dealing with heavy caseloads in a highly bureaucratized system where acquittal rates are extremely low. How far do such cases shed light on how judging is carried out in the majority of Thai courts? What kind of challenges do Thai judges face in adjudicating minor but often messy cases in order to fulfil societal expectations in line with their own understandings of justice?

Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the United States sought to establish a framework for detaining, interrogating and possibly prosecuting persons suspected of various degrees of connection to international terrorism. There were several factors militating against reliance on a tried and true law enforcement paradigm of arrest and prosecution in federal courts. Perhaps the most significant one, as described by then Attorney General Ashcroft and other senior officials in the Department of Justice, was the felt need for a fundamental shift in approach when dealing with terrorist suspects, from prosecution to prevention of future attacks.

It was presumed that these two interests were at odds: on the one hand, preparing and trying criminal cases, and on the other hand, obtaining actionable intelligence about terrorist groups and their plans; in other words, that the application of criminal justice procedures would hamper the intelligence gathering effort. After all, ‘you have a right to remain silent and a right to an attorney’ (the so-called Miranda warnings) was not the message that the administration wanted to convey.