Section 227/1 — Cautious Weighing of Weak Evidence
Texte légal (original thaï)
ในการวินิจฉัยชั่งน้ำหนักพยานบอกเล่า พยานซัดทอด
พยานที่จำเลยไม่มีโอกาสถามค้าน
หรือพยานหลักฐานที่มีข้อบกพร่องประการอื่นอันอาจกระทบถึงความน่าเชื่อถือของพยานหลักฐานนั้น
ศาลจะต้องกระทำด้วยความระมัดระวัง
และไม่ควรเชื่อพยานหลักฐานนั้นโดยลำพังเพื่อลงโทษจำเลย
เว้นแต่จะมีเหตุผลอันหนักแน่น มีพฤติการณ์พิเศษแห่งคดี
หรือมีพยานหลักฐานประกอบอื่นมาสนับสนุนพยานหลักฐานประกอบตามวรรคหนึ่ง
หมายถึง พยานหลักฐานอื่นที่รับฟังได้ และมีแหล่งที่มาเป็นอิสระต่างหากจากพยานหลักฐานที่ต้องการพยานหลักฐานประกอบนั้น
ทั้งจะต้องมีคุณค่าเชิงพิสูจน์ที่สามารถสนับสนุนให้พยานหลักฐานอื่นที่ไปประกอบมีความน่าเชื่อถือมากขึ้นด้วย
traduction anglaise
In weighing hearsay evidence, accomplice testimony, testimony that the defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine, or evidence having any other defect that may affect its credibility, the court shall act with caution and should not convict the defendant on such evidence alone, unless there are compelling reasons, special circumstances of the case, or other corroborating evidence in support. Corroborating evidence under paragraph one means other admissible evidence that has an independent source, separate from the evidence requiring corroboration, and that must also have probative value capable of making the other supported evidence more credible.
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 227/1 refines the general weighing rule of Section 227 by singling out categories of inherently unreliable evidence and imposing a caution requirement. It names hearsay, accomplice or incriminating co-offender testimony (khamsatthon), untested testimony the defendant could not cross-examine, and any other credibility-affecting defect. The court may not convict on such evidence alone unless there are compelling reasons, special circumstances, or corroboration. Paragraph two defines qualifying corroboration strictly: it must be admissible, independent in source, and have real probative value. The provision is routinely cited alongside Sections 226/3 (hearsay), 226/5 (prior testimony), and 233 (accomplice or co-defendant statements).
Pourquoi cela est important en pratique
This is a powerful defense tool where the case rests on a co-accused pointing the finger, a witness who never faced cross-examination, or second-hand statements. Push the court to identify genuinely independent corroboration, because paragraph two bars using evidence from the same tainted source to prop up the weak evidence. Conversely, prosecutors know a lone accomplice statement rarely suffices. If your case hinges on a co-offender's account or an absent witness, plan with your lawyer how to argue the caution rule and test any claimed corroboration.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 765/2567 (2024)
Testimony that is in the nature of an accomplice's incriminating statement must be weighed with caution under Section 227/1 and cannot support a conviction without other corroborating evidence.
The first defendant's testimony amounted to an accomplice's incriminating statement of little weight, and had internal contradictions. The court held under Section 227/1 that the prosecution needed other corroborating evidence before it could convict the second and third defendants.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 642/2567 (2024)
An arrest-stage confession by another person is both hearsay and an incriminating statement, admissible but of little weight under Sections 226/3 and 227/1.
The court held that a co-arrested person's arrest confession, while not barred, was hearsay and an incriminating statement carrying little weight under Sections 226/3 and 227/1, and the accompanying photographs did not establish that the seized items belonged to the defendant.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4136/2567 (2024)
Where a witness recants at trial to help the defendant, that may constitute a compelling reason under Section 227/1 for the court to believe the earlier investigation statement over the trial testimony.
The circumstances showed the witness changed his account at trial to help the defendant escape punishment. The court held this was a compelling reason under Section 227/1 paragraph one to accept his earlier investigation statement as the truth and convict.
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 a court convict on an accomplice's word alone?
It should not. Under Section 227/1 accomplice testimony must be weighed with caution, and conviction requires compelling reasons, special circumstances, or independent corroborating evidence in addition to that testimony.
What qualifies as corroborating evidence under this section?
Under paragraph two, corroborating evidence must be admissible, come from a source independent of the weak evidence, and have real probative value that makes the supported evidence more credible.