Section 134/4 — Caution before questioning the accused
Statutory text (Thai original)
ในการถามคำให้การผู้ต้องหา
ให้พนักงานสอบสวนแจ้งให้ผู้ต้องหาทราบก่อนว่า
(๑) ผู้ต้องหามีสิทธิที่จะให้การหรือไม่ก็ได้
ถ้าผู้ต้องหาให้การ
ถ้อยคำที่ผู้ต้องหาให้การนั้นอาจใช้เป็นพยานหลักฐานในการพิจารณาคดีได้
(๒)
ผู้ต้องหามีสิทธิให้ทนายความหรือผู้ซึ่งตนไว้วางใจเข้าฟังการสอบปากคำตนได้เมื่อผู้ต้องหาเต็มใจให้การอย่างใดก็ให้จดคำให้การไว้
ถ้าผู้ต้องหาไม่เต็มใจให้การเลยก็ให้บันทึกไว้ถ้อยคำใด ๆ
ที่ผู้ต้องหาให้ไว้ต่อพนักงานสอบสวนก่อนมีการแจ้งสิทธิตามวรรคหนึ่ง
หรือก่อนที่จะดำเนินการตามมาตรา ๑๓๔/๑ มาตรา ๑๓๔/๒ และมาตรา ๑๓๔/๓
จะรับฟังเป็นพยานหลักฐานในการพิสูจน์ความผิดของผู้นั้นไม่ได้
English translation
In taking the accused's statement, the inquiry official shall first inform the accused that: (1) the accused has the right to give a statement or not; if the accused gives a statement, the words the accused states may be used as evidence in the trial of the case; (2) the accused has the right to have a lawyer or a person whom he trusts attend and hear his interrogation. When the accused is willing to make any statement, the statement shall be recorded; if the accused is not willing to give any statement, that shall also be recorded. Any words that the accused gives to the inquiry official before being informed of the rights under paragraph one, or before the procedures under Section 134/1, Section 134/2, and Section 134/3 have been carried out, may not be used as evidence to prove the guilt of that person.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
This section is the Thai caution, or right-to-silence warning, within Chapter 1 (Ordinary Inquiry). Before questioning, the inquiry official must inform the accused of the right to remain silent (with a warning that any statement may be used as evidence) and the right to have a lawyer or trusted person attend. Its enforcement teeth are in the final paragraph: statements obtained before the warning, or before the procedures under Sections 134/1, 134/2, and 134/3, are inadmissible to prove guilt. It works in tandem with Section 135, which prohibits inducement, threat, deception, torture, or force, and with the admissibility framework of Section 226 and the hearsay rule in Section 226/3.
Why this matters in practice
Before you answer any question as an accused, the officer must tell you that you can stay silent and that anything you say may be used against you, and that you can have a lawyer or trusted person present. Statements taken before this warning cannot be used to prove your guilt, so anything you said before being cautioned should not be treated as evidence against you. Because a properly warned confession can be used and can strengthen the case against you, it is worth taking advice early: you can book a consultation with a Thai lawyer before giving any statement.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1514/2565 (2022)
Under Section 134/4(1) the accused may choose to give a statement or not, but a bare refusal to answer on a key fact does not by itself displace other evidence bearing on guilt.
In a drink-driving case, the accused declined to answer whether he had been drinking. The Court noted that although Section 134/4(1) gives the right to remain silent, that fact was important to proving guilt or innocence, and the refusal did not overcome the blood-alcohol evidence.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 8572/2563 (2020)
A confession taken in compliance with Section 134/4, given voluntarily and without threat or inducement, is hearsay that may be admitted under Section 226/3 paragraph two(1) to support other evidence where its nature and source make it credible.
The officer testified the accused confessed voluntarily without coercion, and the record showed compliance with Section 134/4. The Court held the investigation-stage confession was hearsay whose nature, source, and circumstances made it reliable under Section 226/3, so the appeal court properly used it with other evidence.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 8192/2561 (2018)
Where the accused willingly gave a truthful statement and the record shows compliance with the rights procedures, the investigation-stage statement may be relied on to prove guilt under Section 134/4 paragraph last.
The Court found the accused had willingly given a truthful statement to the inquiry official without inducement, so the investigation-stage statement could be used as evidence of guilt under Section 134/4 paragraph last, alongside independent evidence such as mobile-phone location records.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Do I have the right to remain silent when questioned in Thailand?
Yes. Section 134/4(1) requires the inquiry official to inform you that you may give a statement or not, and that any statement you give may be used as evidence in the trial.
Can something I said before being warned of my rights be used against me?
No. Section 134/4 provides that words given before the rights warning, or before the procedures under Sections 134/1, 134/2, and 134/3 are carried out, cannot be used as evidence to prove your guilt.
Is a confession taken after the caution admissible?
Yes. Where the officer complied with Section 134/4 and the statement was voluntary, courts have treated the investigation-stage confession as admissible, though as hearsay it is weighed with the surrounding circumstances.