In Thailand, cases arise when a party alleges that another has committed an offense outlined in a specific statute. The judiciary relies on codified laws and judicial interpretation.
The absence of a jury system means that judges solely determine guilt or innocence and possess broader discretion in sentencing than in many common law countries.
Civil Courts
The criminal law of Thailand is based on the principle that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof rests with the public prosecutor to present facts and information in order to establish a defendant’s guilt. The court will then decide on punishment in accordance with the law.
Thailand’s judicial system has a three-tier structure consisting of the Supreme Court (Dika), the Central and nine Regional Courts of Appeal, and the Courts of First Instance. The Supreme Court hears appeal cases and either reaffirms, dismisses or reverses the decisions of the courts below. The Courts of First Instance and the nine Regional Courts also adjudicate specialised cases based on specific procedure laws.
Civil proceedings in Thailand are governed by the Thai Civil and Commercial Code. There are many areas of civil law, including family and inheritance law, property law, contracts, corporate and commercial law, labour laws and intellectual property laws.
The general rule is that the court with jurisdiction is the court where the cause of action arises or where the defendant is domiciled. However, there are exceptions, for example where the case falls within the scope of a more specialised court such as the Central Tax Court, Central Labour Court, and the Central Bankruptcy Court. The courts of first instance will therefore only be able to hear the case if the specific rules on jurisdiction are applied.
Criminal Courts
The criminal courts in Thailand deal with cases that involve alleged violations of laws outlined in the Penal Code or specific statutes, from petty theft to homicide. Judges are sole arbiters of law and fact at the trial level (there is no jury), and are required to record their reasoning in a written judgment. They are also bound to consider past Supreme Court decisions as persuasive (though not strictly binding) guidance.
The judicial system differs from common-law countries in that there are no absolute double jeopardy rules in Thailand – an initial acquittal may be overturned by higher courts. A private complainant can bypass the police and prosecutor to file a criminal case directly with a court as a “private” action, whereupon a preliminary “investigative” hearing will be held to determine whether there is a sufficient basis for proceeding to trial.
If the judge finds that there is, a full trial will take place to establish guilt or innocence. The verdict is then used to determine punishment, and the judge will consider factors like the severity of the offense, mitigating circumstances, and the defendant’s background when making their decision. There are also specialized courts in the country dealing with issues such as intellectual property, taxation and bankruptcy. Appeals against the judgments or orders of these specialized courts are submitted to the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases.
Specialized Courts
In addition to civil and criminal cases in Thailand has specialized courts focusing on different types of cases. The Constitutional Court is one of them, with the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws and government action. The Administrative Court handles disputes between individuals and various government agencies. Other specialized courts include the Labor Court, Intellectual Property Court and the Family Court.
In the case of criminal actions, the court in the district where the crime was committed, alleged or believed to have been committed, holds jurisdiction over it. Appeals against the judgments of the Courts of First Instance are lodged with the Courts of Appeal or the Supreme (Dika) Court, where questions of law and fact can be raised.
Unlike Western legal systems, the Thai judiciary does not allow for plea bargaining or the opportunity to plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to reduce the penalty. The burden of proof to prove guilt or innocence is on the defendant.
In addition, suspects may be detained for up to 48 hours without formal charges and bail is often denied or limited based on factors such as the severity of the offense and flight risk. Therefore, a proper legal strategy is crucial for anyone facing a civil lawsuit or criminal prosecution in Thailand. This is why it is imperative to consult with an established firm that has extensive knowledge and experience in the country’s litigation landscape.
e-Hearing System
While the vast majority of criminal cases in Thailand are prosecuted by public prosecutors, Thai law (CPC Section 28) allows private complainants to bypass the police and file charges directly to the court. In such a private prosecution, the court will hold a preliminary “investigative” hearing to screen the case and determine whether it has merit. Regardless of who is the prosecutor, the high burden of proof in criminal cases means that the prosecution must have compelling evidence to win convictions.
Unlike common-law systems, which allow for jury trials, judges in Thailand decide guilt or innocence of defendants solely on the basis of the evidence presented to them during the trial. This system can be challenging for parties accustomed to a certain degree of procedural fairness in common-law jurisdictions.
When a court finds a defendant guilty, it may impose any punishment allowed by law, including imprisonment or fines, depending on the severity of the offense. In addition, convicted defendants can appeal the judgment to a higher court for review and reconsideration. The appellate courts in Thailand include the Court of Appeal and the Regional Appeals Courts situated throughout the country. Each appellate court is led by a president and assisted by vice-presidents. An independent organization also investigates judges suspected of dishonest conduct, ensuring a level of checks and balances within the judiciary.
