Article 203 — When the Court of Appeal Sits in Open Court
Texte légal (original thaï)
ให้ศาลอุทธรณ์พิจารณาโดยเปิดเผยเฉพาะแต่ในกรณีที่นัดหรืออนุญาตให้คู่ความมาพร้อมกันหรือมีการสืบพยาน
traduction anglaise
The Court of Appeal shall conduct proceedings in open court only in cases where it schedules or permits the parties to appear together, or where witnesses are examined.
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 203 sets the default that appellate review in criminal cases is conducted on the record rather than in open court. An open, public hearing is required only in the two situations named: where the court schedules or permits the parties to appear together, typically to make oral statements, or where witnesses are examined under Section 208. This mirrors the fact that an appeal is mainly a review of the trial court's record, not a fresh trial. The Supreme Court has confirmed that granting a party leave to make an oral statement triggers an open hearing before both sides, but that whether to allow the oral statement at all is a discretionary matter for the appellate court and is not itself open to a further appeal.
Pourquoi cela est important en pratique
Do not expect a courtroom argument in most criminal appeals: the Court of Appeal generally rules from the file, so the strength of your written appeal and reply matters far more than any hoped-for oral hearing. You may ask to make an oral statement, but the court can refuse, and its refusal cannot be challenged further. If you want your position fully understood on appeal, invest in a well-drafted written appeal rather than counting on a live hearing. To understand how Thai courts handle a case day to day, see our guide on Ce qu'il faut savoir avant de se présenter devant un tribunal en Thaïlande.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5649/2550 (2007)
A party may request to make an oral statement in the appeal itself without a separate motion; if the Court of Appeal permits, it hears the case openly before both parties under Section 203, but whether to grant the oral statement is solely the appellate court's discretion and cannot be raised on dika.
The defendant complained that the Court of Appeal should have allowed an oral statement. The Supreme Court explained that permitting an oral statement leads to an open hearing under Section 203 but is discretionary, so the effective refusal could not be raised on dika, and it dismissed the defendant's dika.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 739/2502 (1959)
Where the appellate judgment was read in the defendant's absence and counsel then filed a dika, there was no occasion for the higher court to conduct an open hearing under Section 203, and the court could proceed to adjudicate the case.
After the Court of Appeal judgment was read in the defendant's absence and counsel filed a dika, the Supreme Court, by full-bench resolution, held there was no situation calling for an open hearing under Section 203, and it had power to decide the case.
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
Does the Court of Appeal hold a hearing in every criminal appeal?
No. Under Section 203 the Court of Appeal sits in open court only when it schedules or permits the parties to appear together or when witnesses are examined; otherwise it decides on the record.
Can I insist on making an oral argument to the Court of Appeal?
You may request to make an oral statement, but the Supreme Court holds that allowing it is within the Court of Appeal's discretion, and a refusal cannot be appealed further.