Section 183 — Written and Signed Judgments; Dissent
Statutory text (Thai original)
คำพิพากษา หรือคำสั่งหรือความเห็นแย้งต้องทำเป็นหนังสือลงลายมือชื่อผู้พิพากษาซึ่งนั่งพิจารณา ผู้พิพากษาใดที่นั่งพิจารณา ถ้าไม่เห็นพ้องด้วย มีอำนาจทำความเห็นแย้ง คำแย้งนี้ให้รวมเข้าสำนวนไว้
English translation
A judgment, order, or dissenting opinion must be made in writing and signed by the judges who sat at the trial. Any judge who sat at the trial, if he does not concur, has the power to make a dissenting opinion; this dissenting opinion shall be included in the case file.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 183 sets the formal requirements for a decision in Title 3 (Judgments and Orders): it must be written and signed by the judges who actually sat on the trial, and it preserves a dissenting judge's right to record a contrary opinion in the file. The Supreme Court has clarified who counts as a judge who sat, holding that a judge present when the case was concluded and evidence closed is entitled to render judgment, and that an appellate bench may reconvene to render judgment consistently with this section. Note that the rules on postponing a reading where a defendant is absent now sit in Section 182; earlier decisions referring to a paragraph three of Section 183 concern a pre-amendment version of the text.
Why this matters in practice
This is a formality with real teeth: a judgment must bear the signatures of the judges who heard the case, and a defect in composition or signing can be a ground of appeal. If you are following a case, remember that a written judgment is the authoritative record, so obtain a certified copy for any appeal, execution, or overseas use. A dissenting opinion, though not the ruling, is preserved in the file and can be relevant on further appeal. For serious matters, have counsel review the judgment's form as well as its substance before deciding whether to appeal.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1296/2539 (1996)
A trial-court judge who sat when the case was concluded and the defendant declared its evidence closed is a judge who sat at the trial and is entitled to render judgment under Section 183.
A question arose whether the judge who rendered judgment had properly sat on the case. The Supreme Court held that a judge present when the hearing concluded and the defendant declared its evidence closed counted as a judge who sat at the trial, and so was entitled to render the trial-court judgment under Section 183.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1622/2506 (1963)
An appellate court may set a fresh date to hear oral submissions to cure a procedural difficulty, and where the parties then make none, a newly constituted appellate bench may deliberate and decide the case without offending Section 183.
After one appellate panel had heard oral submissions, the appellate court reconvened to cure a procedural difficulty, but the parties then made no submissions. The Supreme Court held a newly constituted appellate bench could deliberate and decide the case, and doing so did not offend Section 183.
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 Thai criminal judgment be in writing?
Yes. Section 183 requires the judgment, order, or dissent to be made in writing and signed by the judges who sat on the case.
Can a judge disagree with the outcome and record it?
Yes. Under Section 183, a judge who sat on the case but does not concur may write a dissenting opinion, which is included in the case file.