Section 193 bis — Bar on Fact Appeals in Minor Cases
Statutory text (Thai original)
ห้ามมิให้อุทธรณ์คำพิพากษาศาลชั้นต้นในปัญหาข้อเท็จจริงในคดีซึ่งอัตราโทษอย่างสูงตามที่กฎหมายกำหนดไว้ให้จำคุกไม่เกินสามปี
หรือปรับไม่เกินหกหมื่นบาท หรือทั้งจำทั้งปรับ
เว้นแต่กรณีต่อไปนี้ให้จำเลยอุทธรณ์ในปัญหาข้อเท็จจริงได้(๑)
จำเลยต้องคำพิพากษาให้ลงโทษจำคุกหรือให้ลงโทษกักขังแทนโทษจำคุก(๒) จำเลยต้องคำพิพากษาให้ลงโทษจำคุก
แต่ศาลรอการลงโทษไว้(๓) ศาลพิพากษาว่าจำเลยมีความผิด
แต่รอการกำหนดโทษไว้ หรือ(๔)
จำเลยต้องคำพิพากษาให้ลงโทษปรับเกินหนึ่งพันบาท
English translation
No appeal on a question of fact shall be brought against a judgment of the Court of First Instance in a case in which the maximum penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment not exceeding three years, or a fine not exceeding sixty thousand baht, or both, except in the following cases, in which the defendant may appeal on a question of fact: (1) the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment or to confinement in lieu of imprisonment; (2) the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment but the court suspends the punishment; (3) the court finds the defendant guilty but suspends the determination of the punishment; or (4) the defendant is sentenced to a fine exceeding one thousand baht.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 193 bis is the principal statutory bar referred to in Section 193 and limits second-instance review in low-penalty cases to questions of law. The threshold is set by the offense's maximum penalty (imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine not exceeding sixty thousand baht), not by the sentence actually imposed. The four exceptions preserve a fact appeal for the defendant in situations of real jeopardy: actual imprisonment or confinement, a suspended sentence, a finding of guilt with deferred punishment, or a fine exceeding one thousand baht. The prohibition applies to both sides, so a prosecutor equally cannot appeal on the facts; but it does not touch questions of law, which remain appealable, and where a fact appeal is barred a defendant may still seek to appeal through the certification route in Section 193 ter.
Why this matters in practice
Before appealing a minor case, check first whether your point is one of fact or of law: reweighing evidence or credibility is fact and is usually barred, whereas how the law applies to settled facts is law and remains open. The exceptions are important because they hinge on your sentence, so a defendant given a suspended sentence or a fine over one thousand baht can still challenge the facts. Prosecutors are caught by the same bar. Because the fact-versus-law line decides whether your appeal is even accepted, it is worth confirming with a lawyer through an online consultation with a Thai lawyer before you file.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4302/2567 (2024)
Where the trial court imposes imprisonment but suspends it, the prosecutor is barred from appealing on the facts under Section 193 bis, so an appellate ruling on such a fact appeal is unlawful.
The trial court convicted the defendant of driving while using methamphetamine but suspended the imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that the prosecutor was barred by Section 193 bis from appealing on the facts to remove the suspension, so the Court of Appeal's acceptance and ruling on that ground, apart from its lawful re-fixing of the penalty, failed to comply with the appeal provisions.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 614/2566 (2023)
Whether seized property is directly used in the offense and so subject to forfeiture is a question of law, not fact, so the appeal is not barred by Section 193 bis.
The defendant pleaded guilty and the trial court declined to forfeit his car, finding it was not directly used in the offense. The prosecutor appealed for forfeiture under Penal Code Section 33(1). The Supreme Court held this was a question of law, not of fact, so it was not barred by Section 193 bis.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1788/2566 (2023)
A sentence of a one thousand baht fine does not exceed the threshold, so an appeal on the facts of that charge is barred under Section 193 bis (4) and any appellate ruling on it is improper.
For the offense of jointly carrying weapons in public, the trial court fined each defendant one thousand baht. The Supreme Court held that appeal on the facts of that charge was barred under Section 193 bis (4), so the Court of Appeal Region 8's ruling on it was improper and the point could not be raised further in the petition.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Can I appeal the facts in a minor criminal case in Thailand?
Usually not. Section 193 bis bars appeals on questions of fact where the offense's maximum penalty is up to three years' imprisonment or a fine up to sixty thousand baht. You may still appeal on questions of law.
When can a defendant still appeal on the facts despite Section 193 bis?
A defendant may appeal on fact if sentenced to imprisonment or confinement, given a suspended sentence, found guilty with punishment deferred, or fined more than one thousand baht.
Does the bar in Section 193 bis apply to the prosecutor too?
Yes. The prohibition on fact appeals applies to both sides, so the prosecutor is equally barred from appealing on the facts in a qualifying minor case, though questions of law remain appealable.