Section 226/1 — Exclusion of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence
Texte légal (original thaï)
ในกรณีที่ความปรากฏแก่ศาลว่า
พยานหลักฐานใดเป็นพยานหลักฐานที่เกิดขึ้นโดยชอบแต่ได้มาเนื่องจากการกระทำโดยมิชอบ
หรือเป็นพยานหลักฐานที่ได้มาโดยอาศัยข้อมูลที่เกิดขึ้นหรือได้มาโดยมิชอบ
ห้ามมิให้ศาลรับฟังพยานหลักฐานนั้น
เว้นแต่การรับฟังพยานหลักฐานนั้นจะเป็นประโยชน์ต่อการอำนวยความยุติธรรมมากกว่าผลเสียอันเกิดจากผลกระทบต่อมาตรฐานของระบบงานยุติธรรมทางอาญาหรือสิทธิเสรีภาพพื้นฐานของประชาชนในการใช้ดุลพินิจรับฟังพยานหลักฐานตามวรรคหนึ่ง
ให้ศาลพิจารณาถึงพฤติการณ์ทั้งปวงแห่งคดี โดยต้องคำนึงถึงปัจจัยต่างๆ
ดังต่อไปนี้ด้วย
(๑)
คุณค่าในเชิงพิสูจน์ ความสำคัญ และความน่าเชื่อถือของพยานหลักฐานนั้น
(๒)
พฤติการณ์และความร้ายแรงของความผิดในคดี
(๓)
ลักษณะและความเสียหายที่เกิดจากการกระทำโดยมิชอบ
(๔)
ผู้ที่กระทำการโดยมิชอบอันเป็นเหตุให้ได้พยานหลักฐานมานั้นได้รับการลงโทษหรือไม่เพียงใด
traduction anglaise
In a case where it appears to the court that any evidence is evidence that arose lawfully but was obtained through an unlawful act, or is evidence obtained by relying on information that arose or was obtained unlawfully, the court is prohibited from admitting that evidence, except where admitting the evidence would be more beneficial to the administration of justice than the harm arising from its effect on the standards of the criminal justice system or on the fundamental rights and liberties of the people. In exercising the discretion to admit evidence under paragraph one, the court shall consider all the circumstances of the case, and must also take into account the following factors: (1) the probative value, importance, and reliability of the evidence; (2) the circumstances and gravity of the offense in the case; (3) the nature and the harm caused by the unlawful act; (4) whether, and to what extent, the person who committed the unlawful act that produced the evidence has been punished.
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 provision governs the distinct situation of evidence that is lawful in itself but tainted by the way it was obtained, including derivative evidence traced to unlawfully obtained information, a concept comparable to fruit of the poisonous tree. Unlike the outright integrity condition in Section 226, it sets a default exclusion subject to a structured balancing test: the court weighs the benefit to justice against the harm to the standards of the criminal justice system and to fundamental rights, guided by four statutory factors covering probative value, gravity of the offense, the nature and harm of the unlawful act, and whether the wrongdoer was punished. Notably, Section 226 does not bar private persons from gathering evidence, so where a private individual obtained evidence improperly, Section 226/1 supplies the balancing analysis for admissibility.
Pourquoi cela est important en pratique
If key evidence against you was obtained by unlawful means, such as a secretly recorded conversation, do not assume it is automatically out; Section 226/1 lets the court admit it if the benefit to justice outweighs the harm. Frame your objection around the four factors, especially the gravity of the unlawful act and the reliability of the evidence, and be ready for the balancing to cut either way, since courts have admitted improperly obtained recordings where justice favored it. The same analysis applies when a private party, not the police, gathered the evidence. Early, specific advice can shape how the objection is argued.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 50/2563 (2020)
Even where a secretly recorded conversation was obtained unlawfully under Section 226, Section 226/1 paragraph one allows the court to admit it if doing so is more beneficial to the administration of justice than the harm to the criminal justice system.
The defendant answered a doctor's questions voluntarily, and the exchange was secretly recorded on CD. Although the recording was obtained unlawfully under Section 226, the Supreme Court held it admissible under Section 226/1 paragraph one because admitting it was more beneficial to justice than the harm.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 8575/2563 (2020)
Section 226 does not bar private persons from gathering evidence, so where an injured private party obtains evidence unlawfully, the question of admissibility is governed by the balancing test in Section 226/1.
The Supreme Court held that Section 226 does not prohibit private individuals from gathering evidence, so it applies where a private injured party obtains evidence through an unlawful act, and whether such evidence may be admitted is then decided under the exception in Section 226/1.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 10985/2558 (2015)
Where an accounts officer, having a duty to protect the employer's interests, reports and produces a company document showing embezzlement, that document is not evidence obtained unlawfully and is not excluded under Section 226/1.
The defendant argued a payment voucher was unlawfully obtained and inadmissible under Section 226/1. The Supreme Court held the accounts officer who held and produced the foundation's document had a duty to protect the employer and could report wrongdoing, so the document was not unlawfully obtained.
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
Is unlawfully obtained evidence always excluded?
No. Under Section 226/1 it is excluded by default, but the court may admit it if admitting it is more beneficial to justice than the harm to the justice system and to fundamental rights, weighed by four statutory factors.
Does Section 226/1 apply when a private person, not the police, obtained the evidence?
Yes. Section 226 does not prohibit private evidence gathering, so where a private party obtained evidence unlawfully, Section 226/1 supplies the balancing test for whether it may be admitted.
What factors does the court weigh under Section 226/1?
The probative value and reliability of the evidence, the gravity of the offense, the nature and harm of the unlawful act, and whether the wrongdoer who produced the evidence was punished.