Article 191 — Explaining Doubts in Enforcing a Judgment
Texte légal (original thaï)
เมื่อเกิดสงสัยในการบังคับตามคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่ง ถ้าบุคคลใดที่มีประโยชน์เกี่ยวข้องร้องต่อศาลซึ่งพิพากษาหรือสั่ง ให้ศาลนั้นอธิบายให้แจ่มแจ้ง
traduction anglaise
When a doubt arises in the enforcement of a judgment or order, if any person having an interest concerned petitions the court that rendered the judgment or order, that court shall give a clear explanation.
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 191 provides the mechanism for clarifying, as opposed to altering, a decision under Title 3 on judgments and orders. When genuine doubt arises about how a judgment or order is to be enforced, an interested person may petition the same court, which must explain its decision clearly. The remedy is explanatory only; it works alongside Section 190, which forbids substantive amendment of a pronounced decision, so the court cannot use an explanation to change the result or restructure a penalty. In practice it is invoked in enforcement disputes, for example over how imprisonment terms are counted or combined.
Pourquoi cela est important en pratique
This section is a useful tool when you or a prison authority disagree over exactly what a judgment requires, for example whether sentences run together or one after another. File a petition with the court that issued the judgment and ask it to explain, but do not expect it to change the sentence: for that you need a timely appeal. If enforcement of a criminal decision has real consequences for you, it is worth taking advice from a lawyer first through an consultation en ligne avec un avocat thaïlandais.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1330/2563 (2020)
A petition under Section 191 asks the court only to explain a doubt about its judgment; where the judgment itself is already clear, there is nothing to explain.
After being acquitted with the seized mobile phone ordered forfeited, the defendant petitioned under Section 191 for the trial court to explain doubts about the judgment, because the prison had downgraded his prisoner class and cut good-time based on his possession of a phone. The trial court found its judgment was already clear, illustrating that the Section 191 remedy is explanatory and limited to genuine doubt about the decision.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5416/2550 (2007)
Section 191 does not empower the trial court to change the result of final judgments; a request to combine imprisonment terms across cases cannot be granted by that route.
The defendant asked the court to combine the imprisonment terms across sixteen final cases so they would not exceed twenty years, relying on Penal Code Section 91(2) together with Section 191 and Section 192. The trial court held it had no power to change the result of the judgments, confirming that Section 191 allows explanation, not alteration of final outcomes.
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
What can I do if a criminal judgment is unclear about how it should be enforced?
Under Section 191, an interested person may petition the court that issued the judgment to explain it clearly. The court clarifies its meaning but does not alter the decision.
Can a court change the sentence when it explains a judgment under Section 191?
No. The court can only clarify what its judgment means. Changing the sentence would be a substantive amendment barred by Section 190; the proper route for that is an appeal.