Section 218 — Fact-Question Dika Bar on Affirmed Sentences
Texte légal (original thaï)
ในคดีที่ศาลอุทธรณ์พิพากษายืนตามศาลล่างหรือเพียงแต่แก้ไขเล็กน้อย และให้ลงโทษจำคุกจำเลยไม่เกินห้าปี หรือปรับหรือทั้งจำทั้งปรับ แต่โทษจำคุกไม่เกินห้าปี ห้ามมิให้คู่ความฎีกาในปัญหาข้อเท็จจริงในคดีที่ศาลอุทธรณ์พิพากษายืนตามศาลล่างหรือเพียงแต่แก้ไขเล็กน้อยและให้ลงโทษจำคุกจำเลยเกินห้าปี
ไม่ว่าจะมีโทษอย่างอื่นด้วยหรือไม่ ห้ามมิให้โจทก์ฎีกาในปัญหาข้อเท็จจริง
traduction anglaise
In a case in which the Court of Appeal affirms the lower court or only amends it slightly and imposes imprisonment on the defendant not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both imprisonment and fine but with imprisonment not exceeding five years, the parties are prohibited from filing a Dika on a question of fact. In a case in which the Court of Appeal affirms the lower court or only amends it slightly and imposes imprisonment on the defendant exceeding five years, whether or not accompanied by another penalty, the prosecutor is prohibited from filing a Dika on a question of fact.
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
This is one of the principal fact-question filters controlling access to the Supreme Court in criminal cases. It rests on two ideas: consistency between the two lower courts (affirmance or only a minor amendment) and a severity threshold (five years). Below or at that threshold both parties lose the fact-question Dika; above it the bar continues to apply to the prosecutor. The bar is defeated only through the certification mechanism in Section 221, and it interacts closely with Section 219 (the two-year and fine threshold at first-instance level) and Section 219 ter (detention-related sentences). Whether an amendment is minor or substantial is itself frequently litigated because it decides which bar applies.
Pourquoi cela est important en pratique
Before drafting a Dika, check the shape of the Court of Appeal ruling and the length of the prison term: an affirmance or minor amendment with five years or less almost always closes the door on fact arguments for both sides. Reframing evidence disputes as legal points rarely works, because the court reads the substance. If a genuine and important issue exists, the realistic path is to seek a judge's certification under Section 221 in parallel. Note that even where a defendant's fact-question Dika is barred, the Supreme Court may still review whether the sentence is appropriate once it accepts a valid legal question.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3399/2568 (2025)
Where the Court of Appeal affirms the lower court and imposes imprisonment not exceeding five years, both parties are barred from a fact-question Dika under Section 218 paragraph one, and a challenge to the evidence assessment is a fact question.
The Court of Appeal affirmed and kept imprisonment within five years. The defendant's Dika disputing the finding of forgery and use of forged documents was a challenge to the evidence assessment, which is a fact question barred under Section 218 paragraph one.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 238/2568 (2025)
Where the Court of Appeal affirms imprisonment of two years, a Dika disputing the evidence assessment and the sentencing discretion is a fact question barred under Section 218 paragraph one.
The Court of Appeal affirmed imprisonment of two years each. The two defendants' Dika contesting the evidence and asking for a lighter or suspended sentence raised fact questions, barred under Section 218 paragraph one, and they had not sought a judge's certification.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5658/2567 (2024)
Although a Dika seeking a lighter sentence is a fact question barred under Section 218 paragraph one, once the Supreme Court accepts the defendant's separate questions of law it may also review whether the penalty imposed is appropriate.
Employees convicted of joint theft from their employer sought a lighter sentence, which the lower court had refused to accept as a barred fact question under Section 218 paragraph one. The Supreme Court confirmed the bar but, having accepted other legal questions, went on to review the appropriateness of the penalty.
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
When can I not appeal to the Supreme Court on the facts?
Under Section 218, when the Court of Appeal affirms or only slightly amends the lower court and imposes imprisonment of five years or less, both parties are barred from a fact-question Dika.
Is there any way around the Section 218 bar?
Yes, but narrowly. A judge who tried or signed the judgment, or the Director-General of Public Prosecution, may certify the case as important enough for the Supreme Court under Section 221.
Can the Supreme Court still reduce a sentence if my fact Dika is barred?
If the Supreme Court accepts a valid question of law, it may then review whether the penalty is appropriate, as decisions applying Section 218 confirm, even though the fact-question Dika itself is barred.