Article 235: Court's Power to Question Parties and Witnesses

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 947/2560 (2017)

   Section 235 paragraph one lets the court put questions to the plaintiff, the defendant or any witness. A party cannot invoke that power on final appeal as a substitute for a ground of appeal: where the ground does not say in what respect the appellate court's judgment is wrong in fact or in law, it is improper under section 193 paragraph two read with sections 225 and 216, and the Supreme Court will decline to decide it.

   The prosecution charged unlicensed timber processing and unlicensed possession of processed timber under section 48 paragraph one of the Forest Act B.E. 2484, offences which are committed only within a timber processing control zone, so that the zone is an element of the offence. The Court of Appeal Region 9 dismissed those charges and the Supreme Court agreed. The prosecutor then argued that if the court could not be satisfied whether the place was within a control zone, it had power under section 235 paragraph one to question the parties or any witness in order to find and prove the truth. The Supreme Court held that this ground did not say in what respect the Court of Appeal's judgment was wrong in fact or in law, so it was improper under section 193 paragraph two with sections 225 and 216, and it declined to decide it. The Court made no ruling on the scope or purpose of the section 235 power.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 265/2507 (1964)

   The court's questioning of the defendant on details of the facts, such as whether the offence was a separate act from an earlier case, is a permissible inquiry into factual detail and is not prohibited by Section 235 paragraph two.

   The defendant admitted receiving stolen property and, on the court's inquiry, stated that his act was on a different occasion from an earlier case. The Supreme Court held that even without prosecution witnesses the court could convict, and that questioning the defendant about such factual detail was permissible and not barred by Section 235 paragraph two.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 774/2487 (1944)

   Where the charge of defaming an official omits to allege the complainant's official status, that defect cannot be cured by a later statement, and the court may not question the defendant to obtain that missing fact, as doing so would breach Section 235.

   In a prosecution for defaming an official, the charge failed to state that the complainant held official status. The Supreme Court held the defect could not be supplemented after the fact, and that the court could not question the defendant to establish that element, since doing so to fill the gap in the prosecution's case is prohibited by Section 235.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.