Section 173 — Court-Appointed Counsel Before Trial
Statutory text (Thai original)
ในคดีที่มีอัตราโทษประหารชีวิต หรือในคดีที่จำเลยมีอายุไม่เกินสิบแปดปีในวันที่ถูกฟ้องต่อศาล
ก่อนเริ่มพิจารณาให้ศาลถามจำเลยว่ามีทนายความหรือไม่
ถ้าไม่มีก็ให้ศาลตั้งทนายความให้ในคดีที่มีอัตราโทษจำคุก
ก่อนเริ่มพิจารณาให้ศาลถามจำเลยว่ามีทนายความหรือไม่
ถ้าไม่มีและจำเลยต้องการทนายความ ก็ให้ศาลตั้งทนายความให้ให้ศาลจ่ายเงินรางวัลและค่าใช้จ่ายแก่ทนายความที่ศาลตั้งตามมาตรานี้
โดยคำนึงถึงสภาพแห่งคดีและสภาวะทางเศรษฐกิจ ทั้งนี้
ตามระเบียบที่คณะกรรมการบริหารศาลยุติธรรมกำหนดโดยความเห็นชอบจากกระทรวงการคลัง
English translation
In a case carrying the penalty of death, or in a case where the defendant is not over eighteen years of age on the day the charge is filed with the court, before the trial begins the court shall ask the defendant whether the defendant has counsel; if not, the court shall appoint counsel for the defendant. In a case carrying a penalty of imprisonment, before the trial begins the court shall ask the defendant whether the defendant has counsel; if not and the defendant wishes to have counsel, the court shall appoint counsel for the defendant. The court shall pay a fee and expenses to the counsel appointed by the court under this Section, having regard to the nature of the case and to economic conditions, in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Judicial Administration Commission with the approval of the Ministry of Finance.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
This is the trial-stage guarantee of counsel that opens the Title on the trial and mirrors the preliminary-hearing rule in Section 165/1. It draws a clear line: in capital cases and cases with a defendant under eighteen, appointment is mandatory whenever the defendant lacks counsel, while in imprisonment cases it depends on the defendant wanting a lawyer. The requirement is to be performed before the trial begins, and courts have treated the inquiry as a genuine safeguard tied to the defendant's understanding of the proceedings, though the specific rule that applies turns on the penalty class of the case. The final paragraph provides for payment of the appointed counsel's fee and expenses under regulations of the Judicial Administration Commission approved by the Ministry of Finance.
Why this matters in practice
This is one of the most important protections at trial, because it ensures a defendant is not tried unrepresented in serious cases. A defendant in a death-penalty or juvenile case gets a lawyer automatically if they have none, so they should not stay silent thinking they must arrange their own. In imprisonment cases the defendant must say they want counsel to trigger appointment, so make the request clearly. The appointed lawyer's fee is court-paid, so cost is not a barrier. To understand how the trial will proceed and prepare, see what to know before you go to court in Thailand.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5650/2567 (2024)
Section 173 sets a mandatory appointment of counsel for cases carrying death or defendants under eighteen (paragraph one) and appointment on request for cases carrying imprisonment (paragraph two); where a case carries no imprisonment penalty, there is no basis to pay a fee to appointed counsel.
Counsel sought a fee for representing a defendant, but the trial court held the case carried no imprisonment penalty and refused. The Supreme Court set out Section 173 paragraphs one and two, distinguishing mandatory appointment in capital and juvenile cases from request-based appointment in imprisonment cases, and confirmed no fee was payable where the penalty class did not fit.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1225/2566 (2023)
Under Section 173 paragraph two, in an imprisonment case the court asks the defendant about counsel before trial and, if the defendant declines counsel and pleads guilty, there is no failure to observe the section.
Before trial the court asked the defendant about counsel; the defendant declined a lawyer and pleaded guilty, and the court read and explained the charge and recorded the plea. The Supreme Court held this satisfied Section 173 paragraph two, which requires the court in imprisonment cases to ask about counsel and appoint one only if the defendant wants it.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 8287/2559 (2016)
Section 173 paragraph two requires the court in an imprisonment case to ask the defendant about counsel before trial, and its purpose is to protect the defendant's right, so a failure may call for sending the case back to the trial court to conduct the inquiry.
The issue was whether the case had to be sent back for the trial court to ask the defendant about counsel. The Supreme Court set out Section 173 paragraph two, applied in the district court context, and explained that the provision requiring the court to ask about and appoint counsel in imprisonment cases exists to protect the defendant.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Does the court appoint a lawyer before a criminal trial?
Yes. Under Section 173, before the trial begins the court asks whether the defendant has counsel. In death-penalty and under-eighteen cases it must appoint one if the defendant has none; in imprisonment cases it appoints one if the defendant wants it.
Is court-appointed counsel free for the defendant?
Yes. Section 173 provides that the court pays the appointed lawyer a fee and expenses, set by regulation, so a defendant does not bear that cost.