Section 230/1: Video Conference Testimony
Statutory text (Thai original)
ในกรณีที่มีเหตุจำเป็นอันไม่อาจนำพยานมาเบิกความในศาลได้
เมื่อคู่ความร้องขอหรือศาลเห็นสมควร
ศาลอาจอนุญาตให้พยานดังกล่าวเบิกความที่ศาลอื่นหรือสถานที่ทำการของทางราชการหรือสถานที่แห่งอื่นนอกศาลนั้น
โดยจัดให้มีการถ่ายทอดภาพและเสียงในลักษณะการประชุมทางจอภาพได้ ทั้งนี้
ภายใต้การควบคุมของศาลที่มีเขตอำนาจเหนือท้องที่นั้นตามหลักเกณฑ์และวิธีการที่กำหนดในข้อบังคับของประธานศาลฎีกา
โดยได้รับความเห็นชอบจากที่ประชุมใหญ่ของศาลฎีกาและประกาศในราชกิจจานุเบกษาแล้ว
ให้ใช้บังคับได้การเบิกความตามวรรคหนึ่งให้ถือเสมือนว่าพยานเบิกความในห้องพิจารณาของศาล
English translation
Where there is a necessity such that a witness cannot be brought to testify in court, upon a party's request or when the court sees fit, the court may permit that witness to testify at another court, at a government office, or at another place outside the court, by providing for the transmission of image and sound in the manner of a video conference. This shall be under the control of the court having jurisdiction over that locality, in accordance with the rules and procedures prescribed in the regulations of the President of the Supreme Court, which, having been approved by the plenary session of the Supreme Court and published in the Government Gazette, shall be enforceable. Testimony under paragraph one shall be deemed as if the witness testified in the courtroom of the court.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 230/1 authorizes remote testimony by live video and audio link where a witness genuinely cannot attend court. It sits in Book 5 General Principles and modernizes evidence-taking alongside the older commission mechanism of Section 230 and out-of-court taking under Section 229. The link operates under the control of the court with jurisdiction over the witness's location and follows regulations issued by the President of the Supreme Court, approved in plenary session and gazetted. Crucially, the final paragraph deems video-conference testimony equivalent to in-court testimony, so it carries the same status and is subject to normal cross-examination.
Why this matters in practice
This section is practically useful when a witness is overseas, hospitalized, or otherwise unable to travel to the courthouse. Because the testimony is deemed given in court, the parties keep their right to cross-examine live over the video link. If your case depends on a witness who cannot appear in person, ask the court to arrange video-conference testimony under this section rather than losing the evidence. It is often preferable to a commission because the trial judge and both parties hear the witness directly.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1967/2566 (2023)
Where the purpose of hearing a witness is only to clarify a point and not to take additional evidence, the court need not arrange video-conference testimony under Section 230/1.
The court held that hearing a witness abroad to clarify a withdrawal-of-charge issue was not additional evidence-taking under Section 208(1), so there was no need to examine him by video conference under Section 230/1 as the defendant had argued.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 1 Supreme Court decisions (2023 to 2023)
Selected citing decisions
- Decision 1967/2566 (2023)
This list is selected automatically, weighted towards judgments that turn on this section rather than ones that merely recite it when passing sentence. It has not yet been reviewed by the firm.
Counted across the firm's corpus of 83,652 Supreme Court decisions, 1921 to 2026. The count is complete; the stated year range trims rare outliers so it describes where the citations actually sit. These figures are computed by us and are not official court statistics. How we count these, and what we measured
Frequently asked questions
Can a witness testify by video conference in a Thai criminal case?
Yes. Under Section 230/1, where a witness cannot attend court, the court may permit testimony by video conference from another court, a government office, or another place, and it is treated as if given in the courtroom.
Does video-conference testimony carry the same weight as in-court testimony?
Yes. The final paragraph of Section 230/1 deems such testimony as if the witness testified in the courtroom, so it has the same status and remains subject to cross-examination.
Cite this section
-
Plain citation
Criminal Procedure Code, s. 230/1 (Thailand) -
Academic citation
Criminal Procedure Code (Thailand), s. 230/1. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-230-1/ (accessed 11 August 2026). -
Thai citation
ป.วิ.อ. มาตรา 230/1 -
Permalink
https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-230-1/ -
Embed on your site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-230-1/"><p>Where there is a necessity such that a witness cannot be brought to testify in court, upon a party's request or when the court sees fit, the court may permit that witness to testify at another court, at a government office, or at another place…</p><footer>Criminal Procedure Code, s. 230/1 (Thailand) — <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-230-1/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.