Section 208 — Additional Evidence and Remand on Appeal
Statutory text (Thai original)
ในการพิจารณาคดีอุทธรณ์ตามหมวดนี้
(๑) ถ้าศาลอุทธรณ์เห็นว่าควรสืบพยานเพิ่มเติม ให้มีอำนาจเรียกพยานมาสืบเอง หรือสั่งศาลชั้นต้นสืบให้ เมื่อศาลชั้นต้นสืบพยานแล้ว ให้ส่งสำนวนมายังศาลอุทธรณ์เพื่อวินิจฉัยต่อไป
(๒) ถ้าศาลอุทธรณ์เห็นเป็นการจำเป็น เนื่องจากศาลชั้นต้นมิได้ปฏิบัติให้ถูกต้องตามกระบวนพิจารณา ก็ให้พิพากษาสั่งให้ศาลชั้นต้นทำการพิจารณาและพิพากษาหรือสั่งใหม่ตามรูปคดี
English translation
In the hearing of an appeal under this Chapter: (1) If the Court of Appeal considers that additional evidence should be taken, it has the power to summon witnesses and examine them itself, or to order the court of first instance to examine them; when the court of first instance has examined the witnesses, it shall forward the case file to the Court of Appeal for further adjudication. (2) If the Court of Appeal considers it necessary, because the court of first instance did not properly follow the procedure, it shall render a judgment ordering the court of first instance to conduct the hearing and render a new judgment or order according to 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
Section 208 gives the Court of Appeal two corrective tools. Under (1) it may cure gaps in the evidence, either examining witnesses itself or directing the trial court to do so and return the file. Under (2) it may address procedural defects by remanding the case, ordering the trial court to rehear and decide afresh where the trial court did not properly follow procedure. Both powers, via Section 225, are also available to the Supreme Court on dika. The Supreme Court has stressed that the remand power in (2) is discretionary, signalled by the words if the Court of Appeal considers it necessary, so a higher court that already has sufficient facts in the file may decide the case itself instead of remanding.
Why this matters in practice
This section matters when your appeal turns on a gap or a procedural error below. If key evidence was never properly taken, the appellate court can order it taken rather than simply rejecting the point, and if the trial court skipped a required step, the case can be sent back for a proper hearing. But remand is not automatic: where the record already contains enough to decide, the higher court will often rule itself to avoid delay. Framing your appeal around exactly what the trial court got wrong, and whether the fix is more evidence or a remand, is a task best done with counsel. For help, consider an online consultation with a Thai lawyer.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2802/2567 (2024)
Under Section 208(1) the Court of Appeal may order the trial court to take additional evidence, here on whether a seized blank gun was a firearm or an imitation firearm, and after the trial court completes that examination the higher court may rely on the resulting evidence to decide the legal question.
The Court of Appeal ordered additional inquiry into whether the seized blank gun qualified as a firearm under the Firearms Act. Using the trial court's completed examination and expert findings, the Supreme Court weighed whether the item was a firearm or an imitation firearm under the statutory definition.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4317/2567 (2024)
Although a court's failure to rule on a claim for return or value of property is improper, where the facts already appear in the file and are sufficient to decide, the higher court need not remand under Section 208(2) read with Section 225 but may dispose of the point itself.
The lower court had omitted a ruling on the plaintiff's claim to have property returned or its value paid, contrary to Section 186(9). Because the file already contained enough facts, the Supreme Court decided the point itself rather than remanding under Section 208(2) with Section 225, finding the defendant had no right to the property.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 33/2568 (2025)
The power to remand under Section 208(2) is discretionary, since the statute says only if the Court of Appeal considers it necessary, and does not oblige the higher court to remand in every case where the trial court's procedure was defective.
Even though part of the trial court's procedure was defective, the Supreme Court held that Section 208(2), read with the narcotics procedure law, gives a power to remand but does not compel it in every case, because the statute is worded as a discretion. Given the facts, remand was unnecessary.
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 the Court of Appeal take new evidence?
Yes. Under Section 208(1) the Court of Appeal may summon and examine witnesses itself, or order the trial court to do so and return the file for further adjudication.
Must the Court of Appeal always send a defective case back to the trial court?
No. Section 208(2) uses the words if it considers it necessary, so remand is discretionary. Where the record already has enough facts, the higher court may decide the case itself.