Section 214: Required Contents of Appellate Judgment

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 6387/2540 (1997)

   Where the lower courts cited the offense and penalty provisions applied to the case, the judgment complied with Section 186(7) read with Section 214; failure to specify the exact sub-paragraph is only a lack of completeness and does not make the judgment unlawful.

   The trial court and Court of Appeal cited the Forest Act provisions defining the offense and fixing the penalty. The Supreme Court held this satisfied Section 186(7) with Section 214, and that not stating the exact sub-paragraph was merely a lack of completeness, not a defect making the judgment unlawful.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 5924/2556 (2013)

   Citing a repealed year of an Act in the appellate judgment does not make the judgment unlawful under Section 186 read with Sections 214 and 215 where the mistaken year is not a material point and does not change the result.

   The plaintiff argued the Court of Appeal had relied on a repealed year of the bad-check Act. The Supreme Court held the reasoning was correct and that citing the wrong year was not a material point affecting the result, so the judgment was not unlawful under Section 186 with Sections 214 and 215.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1099/2539 (1996)

   A Court of Appeal judgment that varies the trial court's judgment satisfies the reason-giving requirement of section 186(6) where the variation is itself an exercise of discretion on the facts that shows why the court does not accept the appellant's ground. Extended reasoning is not required where the defendant pleaded guilty and neither side led evidence. A ground raised on appeal that was never pleaded in the charge, such as a previous term of imprisonment said to prevent suspension of sentence, is not a matter that was raised in the trial court, and in a criminal case deciding it would prejudice a defendant who had no opportunity to contest it, so the appellate court is right not to decide it.

   The defendant pleaded guilty to a heroin charge and neither side led evidence. The trial court imposed imprisonment but suspended it. The prosecution appealed asking that the sentence not be suspended, and the Court of Appeal Region 2 varied the judgment by requiring the defendant to report to the Uthai Thani court clerk once a month for one year, otherwise affirming. The prosecution appealed further, arguing that the varied judgment gave no reasons and so offended sections 215, 214 and 186(6). The Supreme Court held that the variation was itself an exercise of discretion on the facts which showed why the Court of Appeal did not accept the ground that the sentence should not be suspended, and that the judgment complied with section 186(6). It added that the prosecution's point about a previous term of imprisonment had not been pleaded in the charge, so it had not been raised in the trial court and would prejudice the defendant, and the Court of Appeal was right not to decide it. The appeal was dismissed. The Court rested its decision on section 186(6); sections 214 and 215 were the appellant's framing and were not the ground of decision.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.