Section 222 — Supreme Court Bound by Appeal Court Facts
Statutory text (Thai original)
ถ้าคดีมีปัญหาแต่เฉพาะข้อกฎหมาย ในการวินิจฉัยปัญหาข้อกฎหมายนั้น ศาลฎีกาจะต้องฟังข้อเท็จจริงตามที่ศาลอุทธรณ์ได้วินิจฉัยมาแล้วจากพยานหลักฐานในสำนวน
English translation
If a case involves only a question of law, then in deciding that question of law the Supreme Court must accept the facts as already found by the Court of Appeal from the evidence in the case file.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
This provision defines the Supreme Court's role in a law-only Dika: it is a court of law, not a third fact-finder. Where the case turns solely on a question of law, the Supreme Court is bound by the facts the Court of Appeal established from the case file and applies the law to those facts. The rule dovetails with the fact-question bars in Sections 218 to 220, because once fact questions are excluded, what remains for the Supreme Court is the legal characterization applied to settled facts. It applies not only in ordinary criminal cases but also, through incorporation clauses, in specialized proceedings such as narcotics cases.
Why this matters in practice
When you can only bring a law question to the Supreme Court, build your Dika on the facts as found by the Court of Appeal, not the facts you wish it had found; arguments that quietly ask the Supreme Court to re-weigh evidence will be rejected as disguised fact questions. Read the Court of Appeal judgment closely to see exactly which facts are settled, because those are the platform for your legal argument. This is why careful framing of the legal issue, separate from the evidence, is decisive in a Dika.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2040/2566 (2023)
In deciding a question of law, the Supreme Court must accept the facts as found by the Court of Appeal from the evidence in the case file, under Section 222.
The legal question concerned excise tax classification of a rebuilt car. The Supreme Court applied Section 222 and decided the point on the facts found by the Court of Appeal, namely that the defendant had assembled purchased car parts into the vehicle and advertised it for sale.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4337/2565 (2022)
In deciding whether the plaintiff is an injured person with standing under Section 2(4), a question of law, the Supreme Court must accept the facts found by the Court of Appeal under Section 222.
In a case of forging a will, the legal question was whether the plaintiff had standing as an injured person. Applying Section 222, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal court's findings that the plaintiff and the third defendant were lawful heirs of the deceased whose will was forged.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4019/2564 (2021)
Even in a narcotics case, in deciding a question of law the Supreme Court must accept the facts found by the Court of Appeal from the case file under Section 222, applied through the Narcotics Cases Procedure Act.
The legal question was whether the defendant had conspired to commit narcotics offenses and sold methamphetamine. The Supreme Court applied Section 222 via the Narcotics Cases Procedure Act and decided on the settled facts from the appeal court about messaging and drug transactions.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Does the Supreme Court re-examine the evidence in a law-only Dika?
No. Under Section 222, when the case raises only a question of law, the Supreme Court must accept the facts as found by the Court of Appeal from the case file and apply the law to them.
Why does my Dika need to accept the Court of Appeal's facts?
Because Section 222 binds the Supreme Court to those facts on a law-only Dika. An argument that requires re-finding the facts will be treated as a fact question and rejected.