Article 114 — Exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom
Texte légal (original thaï)
ห้ามไม่ให้พยานเบิกความต่อหน้าพยานอื่นที่จะเบิกความภายหลัง และศาลมีอำนาจที่จะสั่งพยานอื่นที่อยู่ในห้องพิจารณาให้ออกไปเสียได้แต่ถ้าพยานคนใดเบิกความโดยได้ฟังคำพยานคนก่อนเบิกความต่อหน้าตนมาแล้ว และคู่ความอีกฝ่ายหนึ่งอ้างว่าศาลไม่ควรฟังคำเบิกความเช่นว่านี้ เพราะเป็นการผิดระเบียบ ถ้าศาลเห็นว่าคำเบิกความเช่นว่านี้เป็นที่เชื่อฟังได้ หรือมิได้เปลี่ยนแปลงไปโดยได้ฟังคำเบิกความของพยานคนก่อนหรือไม่สามารถทำให้คำวินิจฉัยชี้ขาดของศาลเปลี่ยนแปลงไปได้ ศาลจะไม่ฟังว่าคำเบิกความเช่นว่านี้เป็นผิดระเบียบก็ได้
traduction anglaise
A witness is prohibited from giving testimony in the presence of another witness who is to testify afterwards, and the court has the power to order other witnesses who are in the courtroom to leave. But if a witness gives testimony after having heard, in their presence, the testimony of a prior witness, and the other party claims that the court should not admit such testimony because it is irregular, then if the court is of the opinion that such testimony is credible, or that it has not been altered by having heard the prior witness's testimony, or that it cannot cause the court's adjudication to change, the court may decline to hold that such testimony is irregular.
Cette traduction anglaise est fournie à titre indicatif uniquement et n'a pas encore été vérifiée de manière définitive ; référez-vous toujours à l'original thaï.
Annotation de l'entreprise
Section 114 guards against witnesses tailoring their evidence to match what they have heard others say, by keeping a witness who is yet to testify out of earshot and letting the court clear the courtroom of waiting witnesses. The second paragraph is a saving provision: even if the sequestration is breached, the court is not bound to reject the tainted testimony. It may still admit it where the evidence is credible, was not influenced by what the witness overheard, or would not alter the decision, a discretion the courts describe as arising under paragraph two. The provision complements the oath in Section 112 and the oral testimony rule in Section 113, and applies in criminal proceedings through Section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Pourquoi cela est important en pratique
If you are worried about collusion, ask the court at the start of the hearing to keep the other side's witnesses out of the courtroom until each has testified. If a witness does overhear earlier evidence, object promptly and have the objection recorded, because the court weighs whether the testimony is still credible and whether it changed anything. A failure to object at the time can weaken the point on appeal, so raising it correctly during the trial matters. Careful hearing management like this is part of why choosing an experienced Thai lawyer makes a difference.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4641/2558 (2015)
Under the second paragraph of Section 114, the court has discretion to decline to treat testimony as irregular where the account is credible and does not change the court's adjudication, even though the witness heard an earlier witness.
The Supreme Court found a witness's testimony consistent with the scene inspection and with the witness's own statement in a related criminal case, so it was credible and did not change the adjudication. The court held that under the second paragraph of Section 114 it had discretion not to treat that testimony as irregular.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5027/2552 (2009)
A party who does not object at trial to a breach of the witness exclusion rule weakens the point, and in any event under the second paragraph of Section 114 the testimony may be accepted if it would not change the court's decision.
The plaintiff argued that two defendants who heard each other testify could easily coordinate their accounts. The Supreme Court noted the plaintiff had not objected to the irregularity at first instance and held that, in any event, it could not change the court's adjudication under the second paragraph of Section 114.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4132/2556 (2013)
Allowing an injured party to testify after remaining in the courtroom during an earlier witness's evidence engages both the irregular-proceeding rule in Section 27 and the witness exclusion rule in Section 114, which the court must apply in assessing whether the testimony was properly received.
The defence objected that an injured party had sat in the courtroom during an earlier witness's evidence, invoking Section 114 together with Section 27 and Section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts had properly received that testimony in light of those provisions.
Décisions sélectionnées avec numéros de dossier vérifiés dans la base de données de la Cour suprême. Les versions anglaises sont des traductions éditoriales réalisées par le cabinet à des fins d'étude.
Foire aux questions
Can witnesses sit in the courtroom while another witness testifies?
As a rule no. Section 114 bars a witness from testifying in front of a witness who will testify later, and the court can order waiting witnesses to leave the courtroom.
What if a witness heard an earlier witness testify?
The other party can object that the testimony is irregular, but under the second paragraph of Section 114 the court may still admit it if it is credible, was not affected by what was overheard, or would not change the outcome.