Section 172 ter — Taking Evidence of a Child Witness
Statutory text (Thai original)
เว้นแต่ในกรณีที่จำเลยอ้างตนเองเป็นพยาน
ในการสืบพยานที่เป็นเด็กอายุไม่เกินสิบแปดปี
ให้ศาลจัดให้พยานอยู่ในสถานที่ที่เหมาะสมสำหรับเด็ก
และศาลอาจปฏิบัติอย่างใดอย่างหนึ่งดังต่อไปนี้
(๑) ศาลเป็นผู้ถามพยานเอง
โดยแจ้งให้พยานนั้นทราบประเด็นและข้อเท็จจริงซึ่งต้องการสืบแล้วให้พยานเบิกความในข้อนั้น ๆ
หรือศาลจะถามผ่านนักจิตวิทยาหรือนักสังคมสงเคราะห์ก็ได้
(๒) ให้คู่ความถาม ถามค้าน
หรือถามติงผ่านนักจิตวิทยาหรือนักสังคมสงเคราะห์ในการเบิกความของพยานดังกล่าวตามวรรคหนึ่ง
ให้มีการถ่ายทอดภาพและเสียงไปยังห้องพิจารณาด้วย
และเป็นหน้าที่ของศาลที่จะต้องแจ้งให้นักจิตวิทยาหรือนักสังคมสงเคราะห์ทราบก่อนการสืบพยานตามวรรคหนึ่ง
ถ้าศาลเห็นสมควรหรือถ้าพยานที่เป็นเด็กอายุไม่เกินสิบแปดปีหรือคู่ความฝ่ายใดฝ่ายหนึ่งร้องขอโดยมีเหตุผลอันสมควรซึ่งเมื่อพิจารณาแล้วเห็นว่าจะเป็นผลร้ายแก่เด็กถ้าไม่อนุญาตตามที่ร้องขอ
ให้ศาลจัดให้มีการถ่ายทอดภาพและเสียงคำให้การของผู้เสียหายหรือพยานที่เป็นเด็กอายุไม่เกินสิบแปดปีที่ได้บันทึกไว้ในชั้นสอบสวนตามมาตรา
๑๓๓ ทวิ หรือชั้นไต่สวนมูลฟ้องตามมาตรา ๑๗๑ วรรคสอง
ต่อหน้าคู่ความและในกรณีเช่นนี้ให้ถือสื่อภาพและเสียงคำให้การของพยานดังกล่าวเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของคำเบิกความของพยานนั้นในชั้นพิจารณาของศาล
โดยให้คู่ความถามพยานเพิ่มเติม ถามค้านหรือถามติงพยานได้ ทั้งนี้
เท่าที่จำเป็นและภายในขอบเขตที่ศาลเห็นสมควรในกรณีที่ไม่ได้ตัวพยานมาเบิกความตามวรรคหนึ่งเพราะมีเหตุจำเป็นอย่างยิ่งให้ศาลรับฟังสื่อภาพและเสียงคำให้การของพยานนั้นในชั้นสอบสวนตามมาตรา
๑๓๓ ทวิ หรือชั้นไต่สวนมูลฟ้องตามมาตรา ๑๗๑ วรรคสอง
เสมือนหนึ่งเป็นคำเบิกความของพยานนั้นในชั้นพิจารณาของศาล
และให้ศาลรับฟังประกอบพยานอื่นในการพิจารณาพิพากษาคดีได้
English translation
Except where the defendant offers himself as a witness, in taking the evidence of a witness who is a child not over eighteen years of age, the court shall arrange for the witness to be in a place suitable for children, and the court may take one of the following courses: (1) the court itself questions the witness, informing the witness of the issues and facts to be examined and then having the witness testify on those matters, or the court may put questions through a psychologist or a social worker; (2) the parties conduct examination, cross-examination, or re-examination through a psychologist or a social worker. In the taking of the evidence of such a witness under paragraph one, the image and sound shall be transmitted to the courtroom, and it is the court's duty to inform the psychologist or social worker before the taking of evidence under paragraph one. If the court considers it appropriate, or if the child witness not over eighteen years of age or a party so requests with reasonable grounds and it appears on consideration that it would harm the child not to allow the request, the court shall arrange for the transmission of the image and sound of the statement of the injured person or witness who is a child not over eighteen years of age recorded at the investigation stage under Section 133 bis or at the preliminary-hearing stage under Section 171 paragraph two, before the parties; and in such a case the image-and-sound medium of that witness's statement shall be treated as part of that witness's testimony in the trial before the court, and the parties may put additional questions to, cross-examine, or re-examine the witness, but only so far as necessary and within the scope the court considers appropriate. Where the witness cannot be produced to testify under paragraph one because of an extreme necessity, the court shall admit the image-and-sound medium of that witness's statement at the investigation stage under Section 133 bis or at the preliminary-hearing stage under Section 171 paragraph two as if it were that witness's testimony in the trial before the court, and the court may admit it in support of other evidence in deciding the case.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
This provision, in the Title on the trial, establishes the special regime for examining child witnesses under eighteen so they are not exposed to ordinary confrontational examination, using a child-appropriate setting, questioning through trained intermediaries, and image-and-sound transmission to the courtroom. Its third paragraph gives the recorded statement of a child victim or witness, taken at the investigation stage under Section 133 bis or at the preliminary hearing under Section 171 paragraph two, the status of part of the child's trial testimony once transmitted before the parties, with limited further questioning. Its final paragraph allows that recording to stand in for live testimony where the child cannot be produced due to extreme necessity, to be weighed together with other evidence. Because such a recorded statement is treated as trial testimony, courts have held it is not mere hearsay.
Why this matters in practice
In cases with child witnesses, especially sexual and abuse offenses, expect the child's recorded statement from the investigation to be played and treated as part of the testimony, which limits how much a defendant can cross-examine the child directly. If a party wants the recorded statement used in place of live testimony, it must show extreme necessity, and a bare wish to rely on it is not enough. Defense and prosecution alike should prepare on the footing that the recording carries evidentiary weight and is not treated as hearsay. For case-specific strategy, arrange an online consultation with a Thai lawyer.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1903/2565 (2022)
Where the trial court transmits before the parties the recorded image and sound of an injured child's statement taken by the investigator under Section 133 bis paragraph four, that recording is treated as part of the injured person's testimony at trial under Section 172 ter paragraph three.
After the trial court played the recorded image-and-sound statement of the injured person to the parties, the Supreme Court held that under Section 172 ter paragraph three it formed part of the injured person's trial testimony, so the facts it contained about the defendant's conduct were treated as having been testified to at trial.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 6247/2562 (2019)
Where an injured child appears but will not cooperate in answering, and the court has the recorded investigation statement transmitted before the parties, that image and sound is part of the child's trial testimony under Section 172 ter paragraph three and is not hearsay.
The injured child appeared to testify but during examination would not answer questions, so the trial court had the recorded investigation statement transmitted before the parties. The Supreme Court held this became part of the child's trial testimony under Section 172 ter paragraph three and was not hearsay, and could be relied upon together with other evidence.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 8595/2563 (2020)
To rely on the recorded investigation statement of a child in place of live testimony under Section 172 ter final paragraph, a party must show an extreme necessity; merely asserting the recording should be admitted, without arguing that necessity, is insufficient.
Because the prosecution could not bring the injured child, an eyewitness, to testify and the defendant had denied throughout, the evidence was insufficient to convict. The prosecutor's argument to admit the recorded statement under Section 172 ter final paragraph failed because it did not show the extreme necessity that provision requires.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
How does the court question a child witness?
Under Section 172 ter, the court places the child in a suitable setting and either questions the child itself or works through a psychologist or social worker, with the image and sound transmitted to the courtroom. Parties question the child through the intermediary.
Can a child's recorded statement replace live testimony?
In proper cases the recorded statement is treated as part of the child's testimony. Where the child truly cannot be produced because of an extreme necessity, Section 172 ter lets the court admit the recording as if it were trial testimony, in support of other evidence.