Article 13: Language of proceedings and interpreters

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1351/2558 (2015)

   No interpreter is required under Section 13 paragraph one where the defendant genuinely understood Thai and his confession reflected his true intention; the proceedings are lawful.

   The Court held that the defendant's guilty plea reflected his true intention and did not arise from any failure to understand Thai. There was therefore no necessity to use an interpreter under Section 13 paragraph one, and the proceedings on the day his plea was taken were lawful.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 10449/2556 (2013)

   Where foreign-language witnesses testify through an interpreter, the failure of that interpreter to take the oath raises non-compliance with Section 13 in the taking of their testimony.

   The foreign victims could not speak or understand Thai and testified through an interpreter, as shown by an interpreter's signature on their recorded depositions. The issue was whether their testimony was lawfully taken, the Court of Appeal having found it improper under Section 13 because the interpreter had not been sworn.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 18538/2555 (2012)

   Section 13 paragraph two, which requires the inquiry official, the public prosecutor or the court to provide an interpreter where a witness cannot speak or understand Thai, shows that the interpreter may be any person capable of interpreting, but must not be the inquiry official, the public prosecutor or the court who is conducting that inquiry or questioning the witness. The bar is on the same official acting in both capacities. It is not a bar on any officer who is said to have an interest in the case: where the officer who interpreted was not the officer conducting that examination, his interpreting is lawful and the witness's interpreted statement is not inadmissible.

   The defendant objected that a police officer with an interest in the case had acted as interpreter for foreign witnesses at the inquiry stage. The Supreme Court held that section 13 paragraph two shows the interpreter may be any person capable of interpreting, but must not be the inquiry official, prosecutor or court conducting the inquiry or questioning that witness. On the facts the officer who conducted the examination of the two witnesses was one officer and the officer who interpreted was another, so the interpreter was not the official conducting the examination. His acting as interpreter at the inquiry stage was therefore not barred, and the interpreted statements of the witnesses were admissible.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.