Section 219 ter — Dika Bar on Confinement-Related Sentences
Texte légal (original thaï)
ในคดีที่ศาลชั้นต้นลงโทษกักขังแทนโทษจำคุก
หรือเปลี่ยนโทษกักขังเป็นโทษจำคุก หรือคดีที่เกี่ยวกับการกักขังแทนค่าปรับ
หรือกักขังเกี่ยวกับการริบทรัพย์สิน
ถ้าศาลอุทธรณ์มิได้พิพากษากลับคำพิพากษาศาลชั้นต้น ห้ามมิให้คู่ความฎีกาในปัญหาข้อเท็จจริง
traduction anglaise
In a case in which the Court of First Instance imposes confinement (kakkhang) in lieu of imprisonment, or converts imprisonment into confinement, or a case concerning confinement in lieu of a fine, or confinement in connection with the forfeiture of property, if the Court of Appeal has not reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, the parties are 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 ter provision extends the fact-question filter to confinement-based dispositions, which are lighter than imprisonment and therefore treated like the low-penalty cases in Section 219. The trigger is a confinement outcome at first instance (in lieu of imprisonment, converted from imprisonment, in lieu of a fine, or linked to forfeiture) that the Court of Appeal does not reverse; mere minor adjustments that leave the confinement standing count as non-reversal. Critically, and unlike Sections 218, 219, and 220, the certification mechanism in Section 221 does not reach Section 219 ter: a judge cannot certify a fact-question Dika in a Section 219 ter case, so this bar is effectively absolute on the facts.
Pourquoi cela est important en pratique
The trap here is the certification route: many litigants assume a judge can certify around any fact-question bar, but for Section 219 ter cases that assumption is wrong, and a certification given by mistake will be treated as improper and the Dika dismissed. If your sentence involves confinement and the Court of Appeal did not reverse, plan on the fact issues being closed and reserve your Dika for genuine questions of law. Confirm early whether the Court of Appeal ruling counts as a reversal, because a small amendment that keeps the confinement will not reopen the facts.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4292/2567 (2024)
Where the Court of First Instance imposed confinement in lieu of imprisonment and the Court of Appeal affirmed, the case is barred from a fact-question Dika under Section 219 ter, and self-defense and lighter-sentence arguments are fact questions.
The trial court imposed confinement in lieu of imprisonment and the Court of Appeal affirmed. Although a judge had certified the appeal, the Supreme Court held the case was barred from a fact-question Dika under Section 219 ter, and the defendant's self-defense and lenient-sentence arguments were fact questions.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 781/2567 (2024)
Where the Court of Appeal only amends a collateral matter and leaves the confinement unchanged, it has not reversed the trial judgment, so a fact-question Dika is barred under Section 219 ter; and a judge may certify a Dika only for Sections 218, 219, and 220 cases, not Section 219 ter.
The Court of Appeal amended only the license-suspension period and left the confinement of both defendants intact, which counts as not reversing the trial judgment, so the fact-question Dika was barred under Section 219 ter. The Supreme Court added that a judge's certification under Section 221 does not extend to Section 219 ter cases.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1230/2566 (2023)
Where both the trial court and the Court of Appeal converted imprisonment into confinement, the case is barred from a fact-question Dika under Section 219 ter, and an argument requiring the court to re-find the facts is a fact question even if it aims at a legal conclusion.
The trial court sentenced the defendant to three months converted to confinement, and the Court of Appeal likewise used confinement. The Supreme Court held the case barred under Section 219 ter, and the defendant's argument that he lacked intent to use a vehicle to facilitate theft required re-finding the facts and was therefore a fact question.
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 does the Section 219 ter bar apply?
When the trial court imposed confinement in lieu of imprisonment, converted imprisonment to confinement, ordered confinement in lieu of a fine, or confinement linked to forfeiture, and the Court of Appeal did not reverse. Then a fact-question Dika is barred.
Can a judge certify a fact-question Dika in a confinement case?
No. Section 221 allows certification only for cases barred under Sections 218, 219, and 220, not Section 219 ter. A certification given in a Section 219 ter case is improper and the Dika will be dismissed.