Article 195 — Legal Grounds and Public-Order Exceptions on Appeal
Texte légal (original thaï)
ข้อกฎหมายทั้งปวงอันคู่ความอุทธรณ์ร้องอ้างอิงให้แสดงไว้โดยชัดเจนในฟ้องอุทธรณ์ แต่ต้องเป็นข้อที่ได้ยกขึ้นมาว่ากันมาแล้วแต่ศาลชั้นต้นข้อกฎหมายที่เกี่ยวกับความสงบเรียบร้อย หรือที่เกี่ยวกับการไม่ปฏิบัติตามบทบัญญัติแห่งประมวลกฎหมายนี้อันว่าด้วยอุทธรณ์ เหล่านี้ผู้อุทธรณ์หรือศาลยกขึ้นอ้างได้ แม้ว่าจะไม่ได้ยกขึ้นในศาลชั้นต้นก็ตาม
traduction anglaise
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.
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 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.
Pourquoi cela est important en pratique
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
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 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.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 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.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 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.
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 raise a new legal argument for the first time on appeal in Thailand?
Generally no. Under Section 195, legal grounds must be stated clearly and must already have been argued at trial, unless they concern public order or non-compliance with the Code's appeal rules.
What is a public-order question of law under Section 195?
It is a legal issue the court may address even if no party raised it, such as correcting the wrong penalty provision or applying a more favorable law. The court can raise it on its own, and will not increase the defendant's penalty when doing so.