Section 221 — Certification Exception to Dika Bars
Statutory text (Thai original)
ในคดีซึ่งห้ามฎีกาไว้โดยมาตรา ๒๑๘, ๒๑๙ และ ๒๒๐ แห่งประมวลกฎหมายนี้ ถ้าผู้พิพากษาคนใดซึ่งพิจารณา หรือลงชื่อในคำพิพากษาหรือทำความเห็นแย้งในศาลชั้นต้นหรือศาลอุทธรณ์พิเคราะห์เห็นว่าข้อความที่ตัดสินนั้นเป็นปัญหาสำคัญอันควรสู่ศาลสูงสุดและอนุญาตให้ฎีกา หรืออธิบดีกรมอัยการลงลายมือชื่อรับรองในฎีกาว่ามีเหตุอันควรที่ศาลสูงสุดจะได้วินิจฉัย ก็ให้รับฎีกานั้นไว้พิจารณาต่อไป
English translation
In a case in which a Dika is prohibited by Sections 218, 219, and 220 of this Code, if a judge who tried the case, or who signed the judgment or made a dissenting opinion in the Court of First Instance or the Court of Appeal, considers that the matter decided is an important question that ought to reach the highest court and grants leave to file a Dika, or if the Director-General of Public Prosecution signs a certification in the Dika that there is good cause for the highest court to decide it, then that Dika shall be accepted for further consideration.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
This is the narrow safety valve for the fact-question and double-dismissal bars in Sections 218, 219, and 220. Two officials can open the door: a judge who tried, signed, or dissented in the lower courts who considers the matter an important question for the highest court, or the Director-General of Public Prosecution who certifies good cause. The reach of the section is deliberately limited: it applies only to cases barred by Sections 218, 219, and 220, and pointedly not to Section 219 ter, so a certification purporting to allow a fact-question Dika in a confinement case is invalid. A Dika that does not genuinely contest the Court of Appeal judgment cannot be rescued by certification either.
Why this matters in practice
Certification is the realistic last route into the Supreme Court once Sections 218, 219, or 220 apply, but the request must go to the right person, a qualifying lower-court judge or the Director-General of Public Prosecution, and be filed together with the Dika at the Court of First Instance, not sent to the Supreme Court directly. Two mistakes recur: seeking certification for a Section 219 ter case, where it is unavailable, and filing a Dika that does not attack the Court of Appeal reasoning, which certification cannot fix. Given how technical and time-sensitive this is, take advice on choosing a lawyer in Thailand before you file.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 238/2568 (2025)
Where a case is barred from a fact-question Dika, a defendant who does not file a request for a judge to certify the matter as an important question under Section 221 cannot have the fact-question Dika accepted.
The two defendants filed a fact-question Dika without asking a judge who tried or signed the judgment to certify it as an important question under Section 221. The Supreme Court held the trial court's acceptance of the fact-question Dika improper and declined to consider it.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 7256/2567 (2024)
In a case barred under Section 220, a Dika filed without any certification under Section 221 is improper, and the trial court's acceptance of it will be set aside by the Supreme Court.
The plaintiff filed a Dika on a charge barred under Section 220 without any certification under Section 221. The Supreme Court held the trial court's acceptance of that Dika improper and declined to consider it.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1154/2567 (2024)
Where a Dika does not contest the Court of Appeal judgment and is therefore improper under Section 193 paragraph two with Section 216 paragraph one, a judge cannot use discretion to certify it under Section 221, and any acceptance is invalid.
The first defendant's Dika did not contest the Court of Appeal judgment, making it improper under Section 193 paragraph two with Section 216 paragraph one. The Supreme Court held that a judge could not exercise discretion to certify such a Dika under Section 221, so the trial court's acceptance was invalid.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Who can certify a Dika in a barred case?
Under Section 221, a judge who tried, signed the judgment, or dissented in the lower courts, or the Director-General of Public Prosecution. The judge must view the matter as an important question worthy of the Supreme Court.
Does Section 221 certification work for confinement cases under Section 219 ter?
No. Section 221 reaches only cases barred by Sections 218, 219, and 220. A certification purporting to allow a fact-question Dika in a Section 219 ter confinement case is improper.