Article 183 — Written and Signed Judgments; Dissent
Texte légal (original thaï)
คำพิพากษา หรือคำสั่งหรือความเห็นแย้งต้องทำเป็นหนังสือลงลายมือชื่อผู้พิพากษาซึ่งนั่งพิจารณา ผู้พิพากษาใดที่นั่งพิจารณา ถ้าไม่เห็นพ้องด้วย มีอำนาจทำความเห็นแย้ง คำแย้งนี้ให้รวมเข้าสำนวนไว้
traduction anglaise
A judgment, order, or dissenting opinion must be made in writing and signed by the judges who sat at the trial. Any judge who sat at the trial, if he does not concur, has the power to make a dissenting opinion; this dissenting opinion shall be included in the case file.
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 183 sets the formal requirements for a decision in Title 3 (Judgments and Orders): it must be written and signed by the judges who actually sat on the trial, and it preserves a dissenting judge's right to record a contrary opinion in the file. The Supreme Court has clarified who counts as a judge who sat, holding that a judge present when the case was concluded and evidence closed is entitled to render judgment, and that an appellate bench may reconvene to render judgment consistently with this section. Note that the rules on postponing a reading where a defendant is absent now sit in Section 182; earlier decisions referring to a paragraph three of Section 183 concern a pre-amendment version of the text.
Pourquoi cela est important en pratique
This is a formality with real teeth: a judgment must bear the signatures of the judges who heard the case, and a defect in composition or signing can be a ground of appeal. If you are following a case, remember that a written judgment is the authoritative record, so obtain a certified copy for any appeal, execution, or overseas use. A dissenting opinion, though not the ruling, is preserved in the file and can be relevant on further appeal. For serious matters, have counsel review the judgment's form as well as its substance before deciding whether to appeal.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1296/2539 (1996)
A trial-court judge who sat when the case was concluded and the defendant declared its evidence closed is a judge who sat at the trial and is entitled to render judgment under Section 183.
A question arose whether the judge who rendered judgment had properly sat on the case. The Supreme Court held that a judge present when the hearing concluded and the defendant declared its evidence closed counted as a judge who sat at the trial, and so was entitled to render the trial-court judgment under Section 183.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1622/2506 (1963)
An appellate court may set a fresh date to hear oral submissions to cure a procedural difficulty, and where the parties then make none, a newly constituted appellate bench may deliberate and decide the case without offending Section 183.
After one appellate panel had heard oral submissions, the appellate court reconvened to cure a procedural difficulty, but the parties then made no submissions. The Supreme Court held a newly constituted appellate bench could deliberate and decide the case, and doing so did not offend Section 183.
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
Must a Thai criminal judgment be in writing?
Yes. Section 183 requires the judgment, order, or dissent to be made in writing and signed by the judges who sat on the case.
Can a judge disagree with the outcome and record it?
Yes. Under Section 183, a judge who sat on the case but does not concur may write a dissenting opinion, which is included in the case file.