{"id":80,"date":"2026-03-07T06:23:39","date_gmt":"2026-03-06T23:23:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/defamation-defenses-supreme-court-decisions-thailand\/"},"modified":"2026-08-23T20:53:47","modified_gmt":"2026-08-23T13:53:47","slug":"defamation-defenses-supreme-court-decisions-thailand","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/fr\/defamation-defenses-supreme-court-decisions-thailand\/","title":{"rendered":"Moyens de d\u00e9fense en mati\u00e8re de diffamation en Tha\u00eflande\u00a0: d\u00e9cisions de la Cour supr\u00eame, d\u00e9fense fond\u00e9e sur la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 et protections anti-SLAPP"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Being accused of defamation in Thailand does not mean automatic conviction. Thai law provides multiple defences under the&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/thai-penal-code\/\">Criminal Code<\/a>&nbsp;and Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court of Thailand (\u0e28\u0e32\u0e25\u0e0e\u0e35\u0e01\u0e32, San Dika) has also developed important principles through landmark decisions.<\/p>\n<p>This guide covers every available defence against defamation charges in Thailand. It includes the statutory defences under Sections 329 to 331, the truth defence, the anti-SLAPP provisions, and the statute of limitations. It also summarises the decided cases that matter, naming the court in each one, and answers the question most people arrive with: whether reporting someone to the police is itself defamation.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"police-complaint\">Is Reporting Someone to the Police Defamation in Thailand?<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Short answer: a complaint to the police can satisfy the elements of criminal defamation, but Section 329(1) protects you if you complain in good faith to protect a legitimate interest of your own.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Section 326 is committed by imputing something to another person <em>before a third person<\/em>. The officer who takes your complaint is a third person, which is why complainants are sometimes prosecuted for making one. Section 329(1) is the answer to that. A person who, in good faith, expresses an opinion or a statement &#8220;by way of self-justification or self-defence, or to protect a legitimate interest of his own according to righteousness&#8221; is not guilty of defamation.<\/p>\n<p>Two recent Supreme Court decisions treat the police complaint as the proper channel, and both refused the Section 329(1) defence to a defendant who went around it:<\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Decision 655\/2567 (2024).<\/strong> A man who said a neighbour&#8217;s son had pointed a firearm at him and his daughters circulated a written account of it instead of going to the police. The Court held that the conduct he alleged was a criminal offence, that he could have made a police complaint and asked the court for a warrant to search for and seize the firearm, that this was reasonable and easily done, and that he never did it. Because he had also embellished and distorted what he had actually been told, the statement could not be good faith under Section 329(1). Conviction affirmed.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Decision 321\/2568 (2025).<\/strong> The banner case described in section 7 below. The Court rejected Section 329(1) and (3) in terms: if the defendant considered the complainant&#8217;s conduct unlawful, the defendant could have exercised his rights through the justice process.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The practical rule is the reverse of what most people fear. <strong>Taking an allegation to the police is the protected route. Publishing it instead of taking it there is what loses the protection.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The protection is not unconditional, and it is good faith that does the work. On these decisions it fails where you embellish or distort what you actually know, where you have no factual foundation and are complaining to injure rather than to protect an interest, and where you carry the same allegation beyond the officials whose job it is to deal with it. Both decisions above turned on the defendant choosing an audience instead of a channel.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Speaking publicly after you have used the channel is a different question, and it can still be protected.<\/strong> In <strong>Decision 509-510\/2553<\/strong> a resident of Bang Muang sub-district complained in writing that a candidate for the sub-district council had used a forged house registration in his application. The District Chief of Mueang Nakhon Sawan did not have the complaint investigated and did not answer when the resident chased it. The resident and a local newspaper editor then published that the District Chief was sitting on it. The Supreme Court held that as a resident he had a legitimate interest in how the sub-district organisation was run and in who sat on its council, so the article was good faith to protect that interest and fair comment as well. Acquitted under Section 329(1) and (3), reversing a conviction of one year and 21,000 baht below.<\/p>\n<p><strong>A false complaint carries its own liability, separate from defamation.<\/strong> Section 172 punishes giving false information about a criminal offence to a prosecutor or an inquiry official with up to two years or 40,000 baht or both. Section 173 punishes reporting an offence to an inquiry official <em>knowing that no offence was committed<\/em> with up to three years and 60,000 baht. Section 174 raises that to five years and 100,000 baht where the false report is made in order to have someone punished. Section 137, the general provision for false statements to an official, is six months or 10,000 baht.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Two defences that do not apply to a police complaint.<\/strong> Section 331 is confined to a party or a party&#8217;s lawyer speaking in the proceedings of a case in court, so it does not reach a police station. Section 330 is weaker than its reputation: proving the imputation true means you are <em>not punished<\/em>, not that you committed no offence, and proof is not even admitted where the imputation concerns a personal matter and proving it would not benefit the public.<\/p>\n<p>If you are on the receiving end of a complaint, note the clock. Defamation is a compoundable offence (Section 333), and under Section 96 the case is barred unless the injured person lodges a complaint within three months of learning both of the offence and of the offender.<\/p>\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"aligncenter size-large is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/online-defamation-risks-thailand-social-media-law-infographic-683x1024.png\" alt=\"Supreme Court Decision in Defamation in Thailand\" class=\"wp-image-25486 tlo-responsive-img\" style=\"width:600px\"\/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">Defamation Laws in Thailand<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<p>For the underlying legal framework, see our pillar guide on&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/defamation-laws-in-thailand-criminal-charges\/\">defamation laws in Thailand<\/a>. For online-specific issues, see our guide on&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/online-social-media-defamation-thailand\/\">online and social media defamation<\/a>.<\/p>\n<div class=\"wp-block-rank-math-toc-block\" id=\"rank-math-toc\">\n<h2>Table of Contents<\/h2>\n<nav>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#police-complaint\">Is Reporting Someone to the Police Defamation in Thailand?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#overview\">1. Overview of Defamation Defences in Thailand<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section-329\">2. Section 329: The Four Statutory Defences<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#defence-1-self-justification-or-legitimate-interest-section-329-1\">Defence 1: Self-Justification or Legitimate Interest (Section 329(1))<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#defence-2-official-functions-section-329-2\">Defence 2: Official Functions (Section 329(2))<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#defence-3-fair-comment-on-public-matters-section-329-3\">Defence 3: Fair Comment on Public Matters (Section 329(3))<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#defence-4-fair-reporting-section-329-4\">Defence 4: Fair Reporting (Section 329(4))<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#truth-defence\">3. Section 330: The Truth Defence and Its Limitations<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#the-public-interest-requirement\">The Public Interest Requirement<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#burden-of-proof-on-the-defendant\">Burden of Proof on the Defendant<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#what-constitutes-public-interest\">What Constitutes &#8220;Public Interest&#8221;?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#comparison-with-common-law-systems\">Comparison with Common Law Systems<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#court-privilege\">4. Section 331: Absolute Privilege in Court Proceedings<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#anti-slapp\">5. Anti-SLAPP Protections Under the Criminal Procedure Code<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#cpc-section-161-1-dismissal-of-bad-faith-complaints\">CPC Section 161\/1: Dismissal of Bad-Faith Complaints<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#cpc-section-165-2-evidence-at-preliminary-hearing\">CPC Section 165\/2: Evidence at Preliminary Hearing<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#effectiveness-in-practice\">Effectiveness in Practice<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#limitation\">6. Statute of Limitations as a Defence<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#supreme-court\">7. Decided Cases on Defamation Defences<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#decision-no-321-2568-2025-banners-criticising-a-provincial-governor\">Decision No. 321\/2568 (2025): Banners Criticising a Provincial Governor<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#decision-no-4403-2566-online-posts-are-publication-under-section-328\">Decision No. 4403\/2566: Online Posts Are Publication, and the Computer Crime Act Stacks<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#public-figure-doctrine-prime-minister-case\">Decision No. 1861\/2561: The Public Figure Doctrine (Prime Minister Case)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#andy-hall-case-supreme-court-acquittal-natural-fruit-v-andy-hall\">Andy Hall Case: Supreme Court Acquittal, 30 June 2020 (Natural Fruit v. Andy Hall)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#phuketwan-journalists-alan-morison-and-chutima-sidasathian\">Phuketwan Journalists: Alan Morison and Chutima Sidasathian (Phuket Provincial Court, 2015)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#myanmar-workers-victory-thammakaset-case-2018\">Myanmar Workers Victory (Thammakaset Case, first instance, 2018)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#decision-509-510-2553-criticism-of-a-district-chief\">Decision No. 509-510\/2553: Complaining, Being Ignored, and Then Going Public<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#how-these-decisions-fit-together\">How These Decisions Fit Together<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#burden\">8. Burden of Proof in Defamation Cases<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#criminal-defamation\">Criminal Defamation<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#truth-defence-1\">Truth Defence<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#good-faith-defences\">Good Faith Defences<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#civil-defamation\">Civil Defamation<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#faq-defences\">9. Frequently Asked Questions<\/a>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#faq-question-1772839561146\">Does &#8220;in my opinion&#8221; protect me from defamation charges?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#faq-question-1772839571794\">Can truth alone save me from conviction?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#faq-question-1772839572913\">What happens if the complainant filed after the three-month deadline?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#faq-question-1772839611511\">Can I use the anti-SLAPP provisions to get a case dismissed?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#faq-question-1772839612294\">Are whistleblowers protected?<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/nav>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"overview\">1. Overview of Defamation Defences in Thailand<\/h2>\n<p>Thai defamation law provides eight main categories of defence:<\/p>\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Good faith and legitimate interest (Section 329(1))<\/li>\n<li>Official functions (Section 329(2))<\/li>\n<li>Fair comment on public matters (Section 329(3))<\/li>\n<li>Fair reporting of court proceedings (Section 329(4))<\/li>\n<li>Truth in the public interest (Section 330)<\/li>\n<li>Absolute privilege in court proceedings (Section 331)<\/li>\n<li>Anti-SLAPP dismissal under CPC Section 161\/1<\/li>\n<li>Statute of limitations (three months for criminal defamation)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Each defence has specific requirements established by statute and interpreted through Supreme Court precedent. Good faith is the overarching requirement for most defences. The defendant must demonstrate that the statement was not motivated by malice or personal animosity.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"section-329\">2. Section 329: The Four Statutory Defences<\/h2>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"defence-1-self-justification-or-legitimate-interest-section-329-1\">Defence 1: Self-Justification or Legitimate Interest (Section 329(1))<\/h3>\n<p>A defendant who can prove the statement was made in good faith for self-justification or to protect a legitimate interest will be acquitted. The Supreme Court has interpreted &#8220;legitimate interest&#8221; broadly in certain contexts.<\/p>\n<p>This defence requires two elements. First, the defendant must have a recognisable legitimate interest at stake. Second, the statement must have been made in good faith to protect that interest. The connection between the statement and the interest must be direct and proportionate.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"defence-2-official-functions-section-329-2\">Defence 2: Official Functions (Section 329(2))<\/h3>\n<p>Government officials acting within the scope of their duties enjoy a qualified privilege. Reports, assessments, and communications within the chain of command are protected when made in good faith. The key limitation is that the statement must fall within the scope of the official&#8217;s duties. Personal opinions expressed outside official capacity are not protected.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"defence-3-fair-comment-on-public-matters-section-329-3\">Defence 3: Fair Comment on Public Matters (Section 329(3))<\/h3>\n<p>This is the closest equivalent to the &#8220;fair comment&#8221; defence in common law jurisdictions. The defendant must show three things:<\/p>\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The subject matter was genuinely of public concern.<\/li>\n<li>The comment was fair and not motivated by malice.<\/li>\n<li>The comment was an expression of opinion, not a false assertion of fact.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The Supreme Court has held that public figures are subject to greater scrutiny than private individuals. Politicians, government officials, and business leaders in positions of public trust face a higher threshold for defamation claims. However, the &#8220;fair comment&#8221; defence is interpreted more narrowly in Thailand than in most Western jurisdictions.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"defence-4-fair-reporting-section-329-4\">Defence 4: Fair Reporting (Section 329(4))<\/h3>\n<p>Fair reporting of open court proceedings or public meetings is protected. The report must be fair, accurate, and made in good faith. This defence is particularly important for journalists and media organisations covering&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/criminal-trial-procedures-in-thailand\/\">criminal trial procedures<\/a>&nbsp;or government meetings.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"truth-defence\">3. Section 330: The Truth Defence and Its Limitations<\/h2>\n<p>Section 330 permits a defendant to prove the truth of the defamatory imputation. However, this defence has critical limitations that distinguish Thai law from most Western systems.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"the-public-interest-requirement\">The Public Interest Requirement<\/h3>\n<p>Truth is a defence only if the statement relates to a matter of public interest. Where the imputation concerns purely private matters and proof of truth would not benefit the public, the defence is not available. Even a completely true statement can lead to a conviction if it relates solely to the victim&#8217;s private life.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"burden-of-proof-on-the-defendant\">Burden of Proof on the Defendant<\/h3>\n<p>The burden shifts to the defendant. They must prove both the truth of the statement and that it serves the public interest. This is the reverse of many Western systems where the plaintiff bears the burden of proving falsity.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"what-constitutes-public-interest\">What Constitutes &#8220;Public Interest&#8221;?<\/h3>\n<p>Supreme Court precedents have established that government corruption allegations generally receive protection as serving the public interest. Business disputes or personal conflicts typically do not. The court evaluates statements holistically. It cannot separate personal from public elements unless they are clearly unrelated or targeted maliciously.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"comparison-with-common-law-systems\">Comparison with Common Law Systems<\/h3>\n<p>In the United States and United Kingdom, truth is generally an absolute defence to defamation. In Thailand, truth is only a partial defence. This is one of the most important differences for foreigners to understand. Behaviour that would be perfectly legal in your home country may be criminal in Thailand.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"court-privilege\">4. Section 331: Absolute Privilege in Court Proceedings<\/h2>\n<p>Statements made by parties or their lawyers during court proceedings are absolutely privileged under Section 331. Any opinion or statement expressed in court in favour of a party&#8217;s case cannot give rise to defamation liability. This recognises the necessity of free advocacy in the judicial process.<\/p>\n<p>This privilege is absolute. It does not require good faith. However, it is limited to statements made in the context of court proceedings and in favour of the party&#8217;s case. Statements made outside court, even about the same subject matter, are not protected.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"anti-slapp\">5. Anti-SLAPP Protections Under the Criminal Procedure Code<\/h2>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"cpc-section-161-1-dismissal-of-bad-faith-complaints\">CPC Section 161\/1: Dismissal of Bad-Faith Complaints<\/h3>\n<p>Since the 2019 amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, courts can dismiss criminal cases, including defamation complaints, that are filed in bad faith or with intent to harass. Section 161\/1 also prevents refiling of dismissed cases. This is Thailand&#8217;s primary anti-SLAPP provision.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"cpc-section-165-2-evidence-at-preliminary-hearing\">CPC Section 165\/2: Evidence at Preliminary Hearing<\/h3>\n<p>Section 165\/2 allows defendants to submit evidence at the preliminary hearing stage. This includes documents, witnesses, and legal arguments. It gives courts the ability to screen out unmeritorious cases before they proceed to full trial. This creates a filtering mechanism similar to anti-SLAPP motions in jurisdictions like California.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"effectiveness-in-practice\">Effectiveness in Practice<\/h3>\n<p>These provisions represent important progress. However, a study by the Clooney Foundation for Justice found that none of 36 examined SLAPP cases were successfully dismissed under these protections. Implementation remains inconsistent. Courts are still developing their approach to these relatively new provisions.<\/p>\n<p>Despite their limitations, these defences should always be raised by defendants facing what appear to be retaliatory or harassment-driven defamation complaints.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"limitation\">6. Statute of Limitations as a Defence<\/h2>\n<p>Criminal defamation is a compoundable offence under <strong>Section 333<\/strong> of the Criminal Code. <strong>Section 96<\/strong> then provides that in the case of a compoundable offence, if the injured person does not lodge a complaint within three months from the date of becoming aware of the offence <em>and<\/em> of the offender, the case is barred by prescription. Both limbs have to be satisfied before the clock starts, and missing the deadline extinguishes the right to prosecute.<\/p>\n<p>This three-month window can be an effective defence in cases where the complainant has delayed. However, the timeline can be complicated in cases of ongoing harm or delayed discovery. The defendant bears the burden of proving that the limitation period has expired.<\/p>\n<p>For civil defamation under the&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/civil-liability-in-thailand\/\">Civil and Commercial Code<\/a>, the limitation period is one year from discovery or ten years from the wrongful act.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"supreme-court\">7. Decided Cases on Defamation Defences<\/h2>\n<p>The cases below shape how the defences work in practice. The court that decided each one is stated, because it matters: a Supreme Court (Dika) decision settles the law, while an acquittal at first instance shows how a defence was argued and accepted in one case and binds nobody. Where a Dika number is given, the judgment has been read in the Thai original.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"decision-no-321-2568-2025-banners-criticising-a-provincial-governor\">Decision No. 321\/2568 (2025): Banners Criticising a Provincial Governor<\/h3>\n<p><strong>Facts:<\/strong>&nbsp;The defendant installed two large vinyl banners along a major public highway. They displayed the Governor of Phetchabun Province&#8217;s image alongside allegations that the Governor &#8220;benefited capitalists and politicians&#8221; by converting forest land for encroachers.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding:<\/strong>&nbsp;The Supreme Court affirmed the guilty verdict for both insulting a public official (Section 136) and defamation by publication (Section 328). The defendant was ordered to pay 500,000 Baht in civil damages plus interest.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Key Principles:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Criticism of public officials is permissible but must be grounded in fact and expressed in good faith.<\/li>\n<li>Large banners in public spaces constitute &#8220;publication&#8221; under Section 328.<\/li>\n<li>The Section 329 defence requires a demonstrated factual foundation. Merely believing wrongdoing occurred is insufficient. The defendant should have pursued proper legal remedies.<\/li>\n<li>The Court examined the location, size, and audience scope of the banners to determine communicative intent.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"decision-no-4403-2566-online-posts-are-publication-under-section-328\">Decision No. 4403\/2566: Online Posts Are Publication, and the Computer Crime Act Stacks<\/h3>\n<p><strong>Holding:<\/strong>&nbsp;Posting material about the complainant on a social network was defamation by publication under Section 328, not simple defamation under Section 326. The Court also held that the Section 328 offence and the offence under Section 14(4) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 are <em>two separate offences<\/em>, punished cumulatively under Section 91, because the two provisions protect different interests: Section 328 protects the complainant&#8217;s reputation, while the Computer Crime Act provision protects the public. The Court of Appeal was reversed and the trial court&#8217;s judgment restored.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Significance:<\/strong>&nbsp;Section 328 raises the ceiling to two years&#8217; imprisonment <em>and<\/em> a fine of up to 200,000 baht, and Section 326&#8217;s one year or 20,000 baht no longer applies. An online post can also carry a second, separate conviction under the Computer Crime Act rather than being absorbed into the defamation count.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"public-figure-doctrine-prime-minister-case\">Decision No. 1861\/2561: The Public Figure Doctrine (Prime Minister Case)<\/h3>\n<p><strong>Facts:<\/strong>&nbsp;A politician who had held the highest executive office as Prime Minister sued a political party and its speakers over statements attacking him.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding:<\/strong>&nbsp;The Supreme Court began from the purpose of Section 329, which exists so that a person expressing an opinion in good faith does not become an offender, and so that criticism remains possible within the limits the law sets. How far criticism may go depends not only on the elements of the offence but on the relationship between the speaker and the person criticised, where it happened, and the circumstances that gave rise to it. Because the plaintiff held the highest executive position and led the country, society at every level, in Thailand and abroad, expects him to be a person of integrity whose conduct is transparent and open to scrutiny in every aspect, direct and indirect, in the dimension of law and of morality alike. A public figure of that kind must accept criticism broadly, and those with an interest may comment in good faith. The acquittal of the first and second defendants was affirmed under Section 329(3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Significance:<\/strong>&nbsp;This is the closest Thai equivalent to the Western public figure doctrine. Note which limb carried it: Section 329(3), fair comment on a person or thing open to public criticism, not the truth defence. The higher the public office, the wider the criticism the holder has to tolerate.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"andy-hall-case-supreme-court-acquittal-natural-fruit-v-andy-hall\">Andy Hall Case: Supreme Court Acquittal, 30 June 2020 (Natural Fruit v. Andy Hall)<\/h3>\n<p><strong>Facts:<\/strong>&nbsp;British human rights researcher Andy Hall was charged with criminal defamation and Computer Crime Act violations. He contributed to a report by Finnish NGO Finnwatch documenting labour abuses at a pineapple processing factory.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding:<\/strong>&nbsp;The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal. There was a real possibility of labour rights violations at the factory. The report was made in good faith for the protection of a legitimate interest.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Significance:<\/strong>&nbsp;Good-faith reporting on corporate practices, supported by evidence, qualifies for the Section 329 defence. This applies even when the report is published internationally and causes significant reputational harm.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"phuketwan-journalists-alan-morison-and-chutima-sidasathian\">Phuketwan Journalists: Alan Morison and Chutima Sidasathian (Phuket Provincial Court, 2015)<\/h3>\n<p><strong>Facts:<\/strong>&nbsp;Journalists from the Phuketwan outlet were prosecuted by the Royal Thai Navy after republishing a paragraph from a Reuters report about the Rohingya crisis and alleged Thai naval involvement in human trafficking. The charges were criminal defamation under Sections 326 and 328 and Section 14(1) of the Computer Crime Act, carrying up to seven years between them.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding:<\/strong>&nbsp;Phuket Provincial Court acquitted both on 1 September 2015. The court held that the words were not defamatory because the report was useful to society, and that the Computer Crime Act was not intended to be used for defamation cases.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Significance:<\/strong>&nbsp;This is a first-instance acquittal, not a Supreme Court ruling, so it settles nothing for later cases. It is worth knowing because of how it was won: the defence succeeded at the <em>elements<\/em> stage, on the argument that the words were not defamatory at all, rather than on Section 330 or Section 329. That is often the stronger place to fight, because Section 330 only removes the punishment and Section 329(4) is confined to reports of court or meeting proceedings, which a news article about trafficking is not.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"myanmar-workers-victory-thammakaset-case-2018\">Myanmar Workers Victory (Thammakaset Case, first instance, 2018)<\/h3>\n<p><strong>Facts:<\/strong>&nbsp;A Bangkok court dismissed criminal defamation charges against 14 Myanmar workers who complained about labour abuses at the Thammakaset chicken farm.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding:<\/strong>&nbsp;The workers filed their complaint with Thailand&#8217;s National Human Rights Commission in good faith. They did not provide false information.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Significance:<\/strong>&nbsp;Complaints made through official channels with supporting evidence may receive legal protection. This set an important precedent for labour rights. However, it remains an exception in Thailand&#8217;s defamation landscape.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"decision-509-510-2553-criticism-of-a-district-chief\">Decision No. 509-510\/2553: Complaining, Being Ignored, and Then Going Public<\/h3>\n<p><strong>Facts:<\/strong>&nbsp;A resident of Bang Muang sub-district lodged a written complaint that a candidate for the sub-district council had not lived in the area for the required period and had used a forged house registration in his application. The District Chief of Mueang Nakhon Sawan, who supervised the sub-district organisation, did not have the complaint investigated and did not reply when the resident chased it. The resident and the editor of a local newspaper then published an article saying so. Both were convicted at first instance of one year&#8217;s imprisonment and a 21,000 baht fine.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding:<\/strong>&nbsp;The Supreme Court affirmed the acquittal on appeal. As a resident of the sub-district, the first defendant had a legitimate interest in how the sub-district organisation was run and in who sat on its council, and there was nothing to show either defendant intended to malign the District Chief in bad faith. The article was therefore a good-faith statement to protect a legitimate interest of his own, and fair comment on a matter open to public criticism. Not guilty under Section 329(1) and (3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Significance:<\/strong>&nbsp;This is the counterweight to 655\/2567 and 321\/2568. Those two say that bypassing the official channel destroys good faith. This one says that having used the channel and been stonewalled, speaking publicly about it can still be good faith, and that an ordinary resident has a legitimate interest in the conduct of the local body that governs them. The order matters: complain first, publish second.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"how-these-decisions-fit-together\">How These Decisions Fit Together<\/h3>\n<p>Section 329(1) is not a licence and Section 329(3) is not a general right to criticise. Across the decisions above the same question decides every case: was the speaker protecting a real interest of their own through a channel that suits it, or reaching for an audience? A factual foundation, a proportionate audience, and use of the official route first are what the courts have actually rewarded. Embellishment, a public platform chosen over a complaint, and an allegation the speaker never tested are what they have punished.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"burden\">8. Burden of Proof in Defamation Cases<\/h2>\n<p>Understanding who bears the burden of proof is essential in Thai defamation cases.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"criminal-defamation\">Criminal Defamation<\/h3>\n<p>The prosecution must prove the three elements of defamation beyond reasonable doubt: an imputation, communication before a third person, and likelihood of reputational harm. However, once these elements are established, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove any applicable defence.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"truth-defence-1\">Truth Defence<\/h3>\n<p>Under Section 330, the defendant must prove both the truth of the statement and that it serves the public interest. This is the opposite of common law systems where the plaintiff proves falsity.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"good-faith-defences\">Good Faith Defences<\/h3>\n<p>For the Section 329 defences, the defendant must demonstrate good faith. Courts examine the totality of circumstances including the defendant&#8217;s knowledge, motivation, and the manner of the statement.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"civil-defamation\">Civil Defamation<\/h3>\n<p>Under CCC Section 423, the plaintiff must prove that the statement was false, caused actual damage, and that the defendant knew or ought to have known of the falsity. The negligence standard makes it easier for plaintiffs to establish liability.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"faq-defences\">9. Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n<div id=\"rank-math-faq\" class=\"rank-math-block\">\n<div class=\"rank-math-list \">\n<div id=\"faq-question-1772839561146\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \">Does &#8220;in my opinion&#8221; protect me from defamation charges?<\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n<p>Generally, no. Thai courts have held that hedging language does not negate the defamatory nature of a statement. &#8220;Allegedly,&#8221; &#8220;rumour has it,&#8221; and &#8220;in my opinion&#8221; provide no protection if the statement is likely to damage reputation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"faq-question-1772839571794\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \">Can truth alone save me from conviction?<\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n<p>No. Under Section 330, truth is only a defence if the statement also serves the public interest. A true statement about a person&#8217;s private life can still be defamatory.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"faq-question-1772839572913\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \">What happens if the complainant filed after the three-month deadline?<\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n<p>The case should be dismissed. The three-month limitation for compoundable offences is a hard deadline. However, the defendant must raise this defence. Courts do not dismiss cases for late filing on their own initiative.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"faq-question-1772839611511\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \">Can I use the anti-SLAPP provisions to get a case dismissed?<\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n<p>Yes, under CPC Section 161\/1. You must demonstrate that the complaint was filed in bad faith or for harassment. Under Section 165\/2, you can present evidence at the preliminary hearing to challenge the case. However, success rates remain low.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"faq-question-1772839612294\" class=\"rank-math-list-item\">\n<h3 class=\"rank-math-question \">Are whistleblowers protected?<\/h3>\n<div class=\"rank-math-answer \">\n<p>here is limited protection. The Myanmar workers case shows that complaints made through official channels in good faith can be protected. However, Thailand does not have comprehensive whistleblower protection legislation. Each case is evaluated individually.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"can-i-use-the-anti-slapp-provisions-to-get-a-case-dismissed\">Facing defamation charges and need to understand your defence options?&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/online-consultation-with-a-thai-lawyer\/\">Book a consultation<\/a>&nbsp;with a ThaiLawOnline lawyer experienced in&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/criminal-law-thailand\/\">criminal defence<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\n{\n    \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\n    \"@type\": \"FAQPage\",\n    \"@id\": \"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/defamation-defenses-supreme-court-decisions-thailand\/#faq\",\n    \"mainEntity\": [\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"What Constitutes \u201cPublic Interest\u201d?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"Supreme Court precedents have established that government corruption allegations generally receive protection as serving the public interest. Business disputes or personal conflicts typically do not. The court evaluates statements holistically. It cannot separate personal from public elements unless they are clearly unrelated or targeted maliciously.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"Does \u201cin my opinion\u201d protect me from defamation charges?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"Generally, no. Thai courts have held that hedging language does not negate the defamatory nature of a statement. \u201cAllegedly,\u201d \u201crumour has it,\u201d and \u201cin my opinion\u201d provide no protection if the statement is likely to damage reputation.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"Can truth alone save me from conviction?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"No. Under Section 330, truth is only a defence if the statement also serves the public interest. A true statement about a person\u2019s private life can still be defamatory.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"What happens if the complainant filed after the three-month deadline?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"The case should be dismissed. The three-month limitation for compoundable offences is a hard deadline. However, the defendant must raise this defence. Courts do not dismiss cases for late filing on their own initiative.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"Can I use the anti-SLAPP provisions to get a case dismissed?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"Yes, under CPC Section 161\/1. You must demonstrate that the complaint was filed in bad faith or for harassment. Under Section 165\/2, you can present evidence at the preliminary hearing to challenge the case. However, success rates remain low.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"Are whistleblowers protected?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"here is limited protection. The Myanmar workers case shows that complaints made through official channels in good faith can be protected. However, Thailand does not have comprehensive whistleblower protection legislation. Each case is evaluated individually. Facing defamation charges and need to understand your defence options?\u00a0Book a consultation\u00a0with a ThaiLawOnline lawyer experienced in\u00a0criminal defence.\"\n            }\n        }\n    ]\n}\n<\/script><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Being accused of defamation in Thailand does not mean automatic conviction. Thai law provides multiple defences under the&nbsp;Criminal Code&nbsp;and Criminal [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":473,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"pmpro_default_level":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-80","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","pmpro-has-access"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/80","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=80"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/80\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5148,"href":"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/80\/revisions\/5148"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/473"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}