Section 130 — Expert opinions oral or written
Statutory text (Thai original)
ผู้เชี่ยวชาญที่ศาลแต่งตั้งอาจแสดงความเห็นด้วยวาจาหรือเป็นหนังสือก็ได้ แล้วแต่ศาลจะต้องการ ถ้าศาลยังไม่เป็นที่พอใจในความเห็นของผู้เชี่ยวชาญที่ทำเป็นหนังสือนั้น หรือเมื่อคู่ความฝ่ายใดเรียกร้องโดยทำเป็นคำร้อง ให้ศาลเรียกให้ผู้เชี่ยวชาญทำความเห็นเพิ่มเติมเป็นหนังสือ หรือเรียกให้มาศาลเพื่ออธิบายด้วยวาจา หรือให้ตั้งผู้เชี่ยวชาญคนอื่นอีกถ้าผู้เชี่ยวชาญที่ศาลตั้งจะต้องแสดงความเห็นด้วยวาจาหรือต้องมาศาลเพื่ออธิบายด้วยวาจา ให้นำบทบัญญัติในลักษณะนี้ว่าด้วยพยานบุคคลมาใช้บังคับโดยอนุโลม
English translation
An expert appointed by the court may give an opinion orally or in writing, as the court requires. If the court is not yet satisfied with the written opinion of the expert, or when a party so requests by motion, the court shall require the expert to give a supplementary opinion in writing, or shall summon the expert to appear in court to explain orally, or shall appoint another expert. If an expert appointed by the court is to give an opinion orally or to appear in court to explain orally, the provisions of this Title concerning ordinary witnesses shall apply mutatis mutandis.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 130 sets out the form and handling of a court-appointed expert's opinion. The expert may report orally or in writing as the court requires, and a written report can stand as evidence on its own. If the court is unsatisfied, or a party moves for it, the court may call for a supplementary written opinion, summon the expert for oral explanation, or appoint a fresh expert. Where the expert explains orally, the ordinary witness rules apply, so the expert can be examined and cross-examined. In practice this means a written expert report is admissible without the expert testifying unless the court or a party requires oral explanation, a point often decisive in signature and handwriting disputes. The section follows Section 129 on appointment.
Why this matters in practice
Do not assume you can cross-examine a court expert as of right: under Section 130 a written report is admissible on its own, and the expert appears to explain orally only if the court wants it or a party moves for it. So if the expert's written opinion hurts you, file a motion to summon the expert or to appoint another expert rather than staying silent. Conversely, a favourable written report may need no live testimony. Because the timing of these motions can decide how the report is weighed, take advice on when and how to make them.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 6985/2551 (2008)
Under Section 130 an expert may give an opinion orally or in writing as the court requires, so where no party requests the expert be summoned to explain orally, the court may rely on the written opinion as evidence without procedural error.
The court used the expert's technical opinion together with other evidence and its own naked-eye comparison of the signatures. It held that under Section 130 an expert may report orally or in writing, and since no party asked to summon the expert for oral explanation, relying on the written opinion was not a procedural error.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4693/2545 (2002)
Where an expert has already given a written opinion on a signature examination, Section 130 does not require the expert to testify in person if oral testimony would add nothing to the court's decision.
The examining officer gave a written opinion that the signature was written inconsistently and no conclusion could be drawn. The court held that under Section 130 requiring him to testify further would serve no purpose for deciding the facts, so declining to summon him was proper.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 7073/2559 (2016)
A DNA examination result sent to the court without a supporting witness may still be admitted and relied on together with other evidence under Section 130.
A university medical faculty sent the DNA result to the court without a witness to support it. The court held that under Section 130 the result could still be admitted and relied on together with other evidence.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Must a court expert testify in person?
Not necessarily. Under Section 130 the expert may give a written opinion, which is admissible on its own unless the court is unsatisfied or a party moves to have the expert explain orally.
What if I disagree with the expert's written report?
You may move under Section 130 for a supplementary written opinion, to summon the expert to explain orally, or to have another expert appointed.
Can a court expert be cross-examined?
Yes, when the expert gives an oral explanation, Section 130 applies the ordinary witness rules mutatis mutandis, so examination and cross-examination are allowed.