Article 195: Legal Grounds and Public-Order Exceptions on Appeal
Statutory text (Thai original)
ข้อกฎหมายทั้งปวงอันคู่ความอุทธรณ์ร้องอ้างอิงให้แสดงไว้โดยชัดเจนในฟ้องอุทธรณ์ แต่ต้องเป็นข้อที่ได้ยกขึ้นมาว่ากันมาแล้วแต่ศาลชั้นต้นข้อกฎหมายที่เกี่ยวกับความสงบเรียบร้อย หรือที่เกี่ยวกับการไม่ปฏิบัติตามบทบัญญัติแห่งประมวลกฎหมายนี้อันว่าด้วยอุทธรณ์ เหล่านี้ผู้อุทธรณ์หรือศาลยกขึ้นอ้างได้ แม้ว่าจะไม่ได้ยกขึ้นในศาลชั้นต้นก็ตาม
English translation
All questions of law that a party relies upon in an appeal must be clearly set out in the appeal, and must be matters that have already been raised and argued in the Court of First Instance. Questions of law relating to public order, or relating to non-compliance with the provisions of this Code concerning appeals, may be raised by the appellant or by the court even though they were not raised in the Court of First Instance.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 195 combines a pleading and preservation rule with a significant exception. Ordinarily a legal ground must be both clearly stated in the appeal and previously raised at trial, so a party cannot spring a wholly new legal theory on appeal. Paragraph 2 carves out two categories that escape the preservation requirement: questions of law relating to public order, and questions about non-compliance with this Code's appeal provisions. These may be raised by the appellant or by the court on its own initiative, and through Section 225 the Supreme Court exercises the same power. Courts use this most often to correct the legal characterization of an offense or to apply a more favorable law, without increasing the defendant's penalty, even when no party raised the point.
Why this matters in practice
Two practical points follow. First, protect your legal arguments by raising them at trial and stating them clearly in your appeal; a new, unpreserved legal ground will usually be refused unless it fits an exception. Second, the public-order exception can work for a defendant even when nobody raised it: the appellate or supreme court can correct a wrong penalty provision or apply a more favorable law on its own, and it will not increase your sentence when doing so. If you think the wrong offense or wrong law was applied to you, flag it, and consider a paid consultation with a Thai lawyer to frame it as a public-order point.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 3817/2568 (2025)
Correcting the penalty provision is a public-order question of law the Supreme Court may raise on its own under Section 195 paragraph 2, without increasing the penalty, even where the prosecutor is otherwise barred from petitioning.
Although the prosecutor was barred from petitioning on the offense under Section 220, the Supreme Court held that correctly applying the penalty provision to the first defendant was a public-order question of law it could raise on its own under Section 195 paragraph 2 and Section 212 together with Section 225, without increasing the penalty. It reversed the Court of Appeal Region 4's acquittal and convicted under the correct provision.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 875/2568 (2025)
Where old and new laws each have favorable and unfavorable parts, applying the favorable parts to fix the penalty is a public-order question the Supreme Court may raise on its own under Section 195 paragraph 2, even for a co-defendant who did not petition.
Because the old and new drug laws each contained favorable and unfavorable elements, the penalty had to be fixed using the favorable parts. The Supreme Court held this was a public-order question of law it could raise on its own under Section 195 paragraph 2 together with Section 225, and it re-fixed the penalty even for the first defendant, a co-principal already serving his sentence who had not asked for it.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 434/2568 (2025)
Applying only the favorable parts of a later law to re-fix the penalty is a public-order question of law the Supreme Court may raise on its own under Section 195 paragraph 2 even if no party petitioned on it.
The old and new laws each had favorable and unfavorable parts, so the penalty had to be fixed applying only the favorable parts. The Supreme Court held this was a public-order question of law it could raise on its own under Section 195 paragraph 2 together with Section 225, and reversed to re-fix the defendant's penalty under the more favorable provisions.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 1 544 Supreme Court decisions (1969 to 2026)
Décisions de citation sélectionnées
- Décision 1327/2568 (2025)
- Décision 875/2568 (2025)
- Decision 4992/2568 (2025)
- Decision 7497/2568 (2025)
- Decision 8274/2568 (2025)
- Decision 7961/2568 (2025)
- Decision 8990/2568 (2025)
- Décision 6190/2567 (2024)
Cette liste est sélectionnée automatiquement, en privilégiant les jugements qui reposent sur cet article plutôt que sur ceux qui se contentent de le citer lors du prononcé de la peine. Elle n'a pas encore été examinée par le cabinet.
Le plus souvent cité aux côtés de
- Article 225 1 345
- Article 78 du Code pénal thaïlandais 985
- Article 91 du Code pénal thaïlandais 927
- Article 83 du Code pénal thaïlandais 674
- Article 90 du Code pénal thaïlandais 621
- Article 29 du Code pénal thaïlandais 499
Sections qui apparaissent le plus souvent dans les mêmes jugements que celui-ci. Le chiffre correspond au nombre de décisions.
Calculé sur l'ensemble du corpus de 83 652 décisions de la Cour suprême du cabinet, de 1921 à 2026. Le décompte est exhaustif ; la plage d'années indiquée élimine les valeurs aberrantes rares afin de refléter la répartition réelle des citations. Ces chiffres sont calculés par nos soins et ne constituent pas des statistiques officielles de la Cour. Comment nous les comptons et ce que nous avons mesuré
Foire aux questions
Puis-je soulever un nouvel argument juridique pour la première fois en appel en Thaïlande ?
En règle générale, non. Aux termes de l'article 195, les motifs juridiques doivent être clairement énoncés et avoir déjà été plaidés en première instance, sauf s'ils concernent l'ordre public ou le non-respect des règles d'appel du Code.
Qu’est-ce qu’une question de droit relative à l’ordre public au sens de l’article 195 ?
Il s'agit d'une question de droit que le tribunal peut examiner même si aucune partie ne l'a soulevée, par exemple pour corriger une disposition pénale erronée ou appliquer une loi plus favorable. Le tribunal peut la soulever d'office et, ce faisant, n'aggravera pas la peine du prévenu.
Guides connexes sur ThaiLawOnline
Citer cette section
-
Citation simple
Criminal Procedure Code, s. 195 (Thailand) -
Citation académique
Criminal Procedure Code (Thailand), s. 195. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-195/ (accessed 1 septembre 2026). -
Citation thaïlandaise
ป.วิ.อ. มาตรา 195 -
Lien permanent
https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-195/ -
Intégrer sur votre site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-195/"><p>All questions of law that a party relies upon in an appeal must be clearly set out in the appeal, and must be matters that have already been raised and argued in the Court of First Instance. Questions of law relating to public order, or…</p><footer>Criminal Procedure Code, s. 195 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-195/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.