Article 179 — Continuous Trial and Adjournment
Texte légal (original thaï)
ภายใต้บังคับแห่งประมวลกฎหมายนี้หรือกฎหมายอื่น ศาลจะดำเนินการพิจารณาตลอดไปจนเสร็จโดยไม่เลื่อนก็ได้ถ้าพยานไม่มาหรือมีเหตุอื่นอันควรต้องเลื่อนการพิจารณาก็ให้ศาลเลื่อนคดีไปตามที่เห็นสมควร
traduction anglaise
Subject to this Code or other law, the court may conduct the trial continuously until completion without adjournment. If a witness fails to appear or there is another proper cause requiring the trial to be adjourned, the court shall adjourn the case as it thinks fit.
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 179 balances trial efficiency against fairness within Title 2 (Trial). Paragraph one favours continuous, uninterrupted proceedings, while paragraph two obliges the court to adjourn where a witness is absent or another proper cause exists. The Supreme Court has repeatedly treated the refusal of a genuinely justified adjournment as a procedural error, for instance where a party needs time to trace a witness or where counsel is genuinely engaged in another court. The provision protects a party's opportunity to present its full case and, where wrongly denied, can lead to the judgment being set aside and the case reheard.
Pourquoi cela est important en pratique
If a key witness cannot attend or your lawyer is genuinely tied up in another court on the hearing date, you can request an adjournment, and a court that refuses a properly justified request risks having its judgment overturned on appeal. The flip side is that repeated or unsupported requests will be denied, so any adjournment motion should be documented with a real, verifiable reason. Preparing your witnesses and hearing logistics early is the best way to avoid losing your chance to be heard; our guide on comparaître devant un tribunal en Thaïlande explains what to expect.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 7402/2551 (2008)
Where more time would let the prosecution trace and produce an absent witness, the request to adjourn has proper cause, and the trial court should not hastily dispense with the evidence under Section 179 paragraph two.
The prosecution sought time to have police trace an absent witness. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that this was a proper cause to adjourn under Section 179 paragraph two, that abruptly dispensing with the evidence could cause injustice, and that the trial court's judgment be set aside for rehearing.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3782/2541 (1998)
In a case carrying imprisonment where the defendant has consistently denied the charge, the court should allow the defendant a full opportunity to defend and grant an adjournment to present defence witnesses under Section 179 paragraph two.
The defendant had consistently denied a charge carrying imprisonment. The Supreme Court held the trial court failed to follow Section 179 paragraph two by refusing to adjourn for the defence witnesses; its refusal was unlawful, and the appellate court's conclusion built on that refusal was also wrong.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1520/2514 (1971)
Where defence counsel's stated reason for adjournment, being engaged in another court, is true and reasonable, the trial court should grant the adjournment under Section 179 paragraph two; refusing it and proceeding to judgment is improper procedure.
Defence counsel sought an adjournment because he was engaged at another court, a reason the Supreme Court found true and reasonable. The trial court's refusal and immediate proceeding to judgment was improper procedure under Section 179 paragraph two, so the Supreme Court ordered the case reheard under Section 208(2).
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 I get a Thai criminal trial adjourned?
Yes, on proper cause. Under Section 179 paragraph two, the court must adjourn where a witness fails to appear or there is another proper reason, such as counsel being genuinely engaged in another court.
What if the court wrongly refuses to adjourn?
The judgment can be set aside. The Supreme Court has treated refusal of a properly justified adjournment under Section 179 as a procedural error and ordered the case reheard.