Article 22: When imprisonment starts and deduction of pre-trial detention
Statutory text (Thai original)
โทษจำคุก ให้เริ่มแต่วันมีคำพิพากษา แต่ถ้าผู้ต้องคำพิพากษาถูกคุมขังก่อนศาลพิพากษา ให้หักจำนวนวันที่ถูกคุมขังออกจากระยะเวลาจำคุกตามคำพิพากษา เว้นแต่คำพิพากษานั้นจะกล่าวไว้เป็นอย่างอื่น ในกรณีที่คำพิพากษากล่าวไว้เป็นอย่างอื่น โทษจำคุกตามคำพิพากษาเมื่อรวมจำนวนวันที่ถูกคุมขังก่อนศาลพิพากษาในคดีเรื่องนั้นเข้าด้วยแล้ว ต้องไม่เกินอัตราโทษขั้นสูงของกฎหมายที่กำหนดไว้สำหรับความผิดที่ได้กระทำลงนั้น ทั้งนี้ ไม่เป็นการกระทบกระเทือนบทบัญญัติในมาตรา ๙๑
English translation
A term of imprisonment shall commence from the day of the judgment. But if the person subject to the judgment was detained before the court gave judgment, the number of days of that detention shall be deducted from the term of imprisonment under the judgment, unless the judgment provides otherwise.
Where the judgment provides otherwise, the term of imprisonment under the judgment, when added to the number of days of detention before judgment in that case, must not exceed the maximum penalty prescribed by law for the offence committed.
This Section does not affect the provisions of Section 91.
ThaiLawOnline translation, written from the Thai original and verified
Firm annotation
Section 22 fixes when a prison term begins and requires credit for pre-judgment detention, a core fairness rule so that time already spent in custody counts toward the sentence. The Supreme Court reads 'detained before judgment' narrowly: only custody in the very case being decided may be credited, not days spent detained in a separate case. The provision also underlies consecutive sentencing (counting one term after another) at the court's discretion, subject to the logical limit that where another case ended in a death sentence there is no imprisonment term to run consecutively. The second paragraph caps the combined figure so that credited detention plus the sentence never exceeds the offense's statutory maximum.
Why this matters in practice
This is money in the bank for anyone held before trial: every day in pre-judgment custody in the same case must be credited against the final sentence, so it is worth confirming the judgment actually orders the deduction. Note the limit, days spent in custody on a different case do not count, and consecutive sentencing across cases can extend total time served. If you have been held in custody awaiting trial, check that the deduction is correctly reflected; our note on what to know before you go to court in Thailand gives useful background.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Arrêt n° 108/2566 de la Cour suprême (2023)
Under Section 22 paragraph one, detention 'before judgment' means custody in the very case being decided; days spent detained in another case cannot be deducted from the imprisonment in this case.
The defendant argued he should be credited with all 588 days held before judgment across three cases heard together. The Court explained that Section 22 paragraph one credits only detention in the case in which judgment is given; 'detained before judgment' means detained in that case, so days detained in other cases cannot be deducted from the term in this one.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1518/2565 (2022)
Section 22 paragraph one lets a court order sentences to run consecutively, but where another case ended in a death sentence there is no imprisonment term for the present sentence to run after, so consecutive counting is impossible.
The Court held that where the present case imposes imprisonment, a court may in its discretion order it to run consecutively with imprisonment in another case under Section 22 paragraph one. But in the other case the Supreme Court had imposed the death penalty, so there was no imprisonment term to run consecutively, and by their nature a death sentence and a prison term cannot be counted consecutively.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4884/2566 (2023)
Where confinement is substituted for imprisonment, the court may under Section 22 order the confinement terms to run consecutively with those in other cases, even though the cases are not yet final.
The defendant's imprisonment across four cases was changed to confinement. Because confinement is imposed in place of imprisonment, the defendant remains bound by the judgments, and the fact that the cases were still on appeal was no bar to counting the confinement consecutively. The Court upheld the order to count the confinement in this case after the confinement in the others under Section 22.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 55 Supreme Court decisions (1957 to 2023)
Décisions de citation sélectionnées
- Decision 4884/2566 (2023)
- Decision 1518/2565 (2022)
- Decision 3676/2564 (2021)
- Decision 2469/2560 (2017)
- Decision 5548/2559 (2016)
- Decision 1831/2557 (2014)
- Decision 336/2557 (2014)
- Decision 6581-6582/2556 (2013)
Cette liste est sélectionnée automatiquement, en privilégiant les jugements qui reposent sur cet article plutôt que sur ceux qui se contentent de le citer lors du prononcé de la peine. Elle n'a pas encore été examinée par le cabinet.
Le plus souvent cité aux côtés de
- Article 91 28
- Article 78 27
- Article 90 17
- Article 83 16
- Article 29 8
- Article 335 6
Sections qui apparaissent le plus souvent dans les mêmes jugements que celui-ci. Le chiffre correspond au nombre de décisions.
Calculé sur l'ensemble du corpus de 83 652 décisions de la Cour suprême du cabinet, de 1921 à 2026. Le décompte est exhaustif ; la plage d'années indiquée élimine les valeurs aberrantes rares afin de refléter la répartition réelle des citations. Ces chiffres sont calculés par nos soins et ne constituent pas des statistiques officielles de la Cour. Comment nous les comptons et ce que nous avons mesuré
Foire aux questions
La période de détention provisoire est-elle déduite de la peine ?
Oui. Conformément à l'article 22, les jours passés en détention avant le jugement dans la même affaire sont déduits de la durée de l'emprisonnement, sauf disposition contraire du jugement.
La détention dans une autre affaire peut-elle être déduite ?
Non. La Cour suprême a statué que seule la détention dans l'affaire même qui est jugée peut être prise en compte ; les jours de détention dans une affaire distincte ne peuvent pas être déduits.
Guides connexes sur ThaiLawOnline
Citer cette section
-
Citation simple
Penal Code, s. 22 (Thailand) -
Citation académique
Penal Code (Thailand), s. 22. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-penal-code/section-22/ (accessed 30 août 2026). -
Citation thaïlandaise
ป.อ. มาตรา 22 -
Lien permanent
https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-penal-code/section-22/ -
Intégrer sur votre site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-penal-code/section-22/"><p>A term of imprisonment shall commence from the day of the judgment. But if the person subject to the judgment was detained before the court gave judgment, the number of days of that detention shall be deducted from the term of imprisonment under the judgment,…</p><footer>Penal Code, s. 22 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-penal-code/section-22/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.