Section 184 — Deliberation and Majority Voting
Statutory text (Thai original)
ในการประชุมปรึกษาเพื่อมีคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่ง ให้อธิบดีผู้พิพากษา ข้าหลวงยุติธรรม หัวหน้าผู้พิพากษาในศาลนั้นหรือเจ้าของสำนวนเป็นประธาน ถามผู้พิพากษาที่นั่งพิจารณาทีละคน ให้ออกความเห็นทุกประเด็นที่จะวินิจฉัย ให้ประธานออกความเห็นสุดท้าย การวินิจฉัยให้ถือตามเสียงข้างมาก ถ้าในปัญหาใดมีความเห็นแย้งกันเป็นสองฝ่ายหรือเกินกว่าสองฝ่ายขึ้นไป จะหาเสียงข้างมากมิได้ ให้ผู้พิพากษาซึ่งมีความเห็นเป็นผลร้ายแก่จำเลยมากยอมเห็นด้วยผู้พิพากษาซึ่งมีความเห็นเป็นผลร้ายแก่จำเลยน้อยกว่า
English translation
In the deliberation for a judgment or order, the Chief Judge, the Justice Commissioner, the presiding judge of that court, or the judge in charge of the file shall preside, and shall ask each of the judges who sat at the trial, one by one, to express an opinion on every issue to be decided, and the president shall express an opinion last. The decision shall be according to the majority of votes. If, on any issue, opinions are divided into two sides or more than two sides so that no majority can be found, the judge whose opinion is more unfavourable to the defendant shall yield to and concur with the judge whose opinion is less unfavourable to the defendant.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 184 governs how a multi-judge bench reaches its decision in Title 3 (Judgments and Orders). It fixes the order of deliberation, requires each sitting judge to opine on every issue, has the president vote last, and makes the majority controlling. Its distinctive criminal-law feature is the tie-breaking rule: where votes cannot form a majority, the more severe view must give way to the more lenient one, expressing the in favorem rei principle that doubt benefits the accused. The Supreme Court has enforced this where a two-judge trial bench split, requiring the outcome to follow the view less unfavourable to the defendant.
Why this matters in practice
For a defendant, the practical takeaway is the built-in leniency safeguard: on a bench that cannot reach a majority, the law tilts the result toward the outcome that is less harmful to you. This is one reason panel composition and the recorded reasoning behind a split decision can matter on appeal. If a judgment appears to rest on an improperly resolved disagreement among the judges, that is a point worth raising, so have counsel scrutinise how the bench decided contested issues before you decide whether to challenge it.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 6988/2549 (2006)
Where a trial bench of two judges cannot form a majority, the deliberation must follow Section 184, so the opinion more unfavourable to the defendant yields to the opinion less unfavourable.
The trial court bench that heard and decided the case consisted of two judges. The Supreme Court held that deliberation for judgment had to follow Section 184, quoting its rule that where no majority can be found, the judge whose view is more unfavourable to the defendant must concur with the judge whose view is less unfavourable.
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 do Thai judges decide a case when they sit as a panel?
Under Section 184, the presiding judge asks each sitting judge to opine on every issue and votes last, and the decision follows the majority.
What happens if the judges cannot reach a majority?
The lenient view prevails. Section 184 requires the judge whose opinion is more unfavourable to the defendant to yield to the opinion that is less unfavourable.