Article 50: Prohibition of occupation

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 6530/2556 (2013)

   Section 50 is a measure to prohibit an occupation and applies only where the offender engaged in an occupation or profession and used its opportunity to offend, with the court finding continuation risks further offenses; it cannot be invoked by a defendant to preserve a license.

   The defendant asked the court to apply Section 50 so he could keep his private driving license. The Supreme Court explained that applying Section 50 requires the defendant to have engaged in an occupation or profession and to have offended by using its opportunity, and that continuing it may lead to further offenses; the provision does not operate to preserve a license.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 18462/2555 (2012)

   Where the court suspends the sentence of imprisonment, it cannot make the order prohibiting an occupation or profession that Section 50 allows.

   In a share-price manipulation case under section 243 (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535, the prosecution asked for a five-year ban under Section 50 on the defendants practising occupations connected with securities trading on the Stock Exchange of Thailand. Because the court suspended the first defendant's sentence of imprisonment, it held that it could not make that order, and it dismissed the request.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 2425/2554 (2011)

   Section 50 lets the court, when passing sentence, prohibit an occupation or profession for not more than five years from the day of release, where it is of the opinion that the offender committed the offence by taking advantage of the opportunity that occupation afforded, or by reason of carrying it on, and that he may offend again if he continues in it. Here the prosecution sought a five year ban on the teaching profession against a class teacher convicted of indecency and rape of a pupil in his charge, and the trial court dismissed that part of the claim, the Court of Appeal affirming. What the courts did decide was that a class teacher who leads a pupil away, even outside school hours and in front of others, is exercising a teacher's authority over a pupil in his charge, so Section 285 applies.

   A teacher was convicted of indecent act and rape against a pupil under his supervision. The prosecution invoked Section 50, seeking a safety measure barring the defendant from the teaching profession for five years from release or from being freed.

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