Section 235 — Court's Power to Question Parties and Witnesses
Statutory text (Thai original)
ในระหว่างการพิจารณา เมื่อเห็นสมควร ศาลมีอำนาจถามโจทก์จำเลยหรือพยานคนใดได้ห้ามมิให้ถามจำเลยเพื่อประโยชน์แต่เฉพาะจะเพิ่มเติมคดีโจทก์ซึ่งบกพร่อง เว้นแต่จำเลยจะอ้างตนเองเป็นพยาน
English translation
During the trial, when it thinks fit, the court has power to question the plaintiff, the defendant, or any witness. The defendant shall not be questioned for the sole purpose of supplementing a deficient case of the plaintiff, unless the defendant has cited himself as a witness.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 235 defines the trial court's active role in questioning during the taking of oral evidence under Book 5, Chapter 2. Paragraph one confirms the court's inquisitorial power to question the prosecutor, defendant, or any witness to establish the truth. Paragraph two limits that power: the court may not interrogate the defendant simply to repair a prosecution case that has failed to prove its elements, preserving the burden of proof on the prosecution and the defendant's right of silence. The bar lifts once the defendant elects to give evidence on his own behalf, at which point he becomes an ordinary witness open to questioning.
Why this matters in practice
For a defendant, this section is a safeguard: the judge cannot cross-examine you into supplying the missing pieces of the prosecution's case. But note the trade-off, once you choose to take the stand in your own defence, the protection falls away and you can be questioned like any witness. Deciding whether the accused should testify is one of the most consequential calls in a criminal trial and should be made with a lawyer. See what to know before you go to court in Thailand.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 947/2560 (2017)
The court's power under Section 235 paragraph one to question the plaintiff, defendant, or any witness serves the search for truth, but a party cannot rely on it in an appeal that fails to challenge the appellate court's findings on the facts or the law.
The prosecutor argued on further appeal that the court could invoke its power under Section 235 paragraph one to question parties and witnesses to resolve whether the site was a timber-processing control zone. The Supreme Court held the ground of appeal did not actually dispute the appellate court's factual or legal findings and so was improper, and it declined to rule on that point.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 265/2507 (1964)
The court's questioning of the defendant on details of the facts, such as whether the offence was a separate act from an earlier case, is a permissible inquiry into factual detail and is not prohibited by Section 235 paragraph two.
The defendant admitted receiving stolen property and, on the court's inquiry, stated that his act was on a different occasion from an earlier case. The Supreme Court held that even without prosecution witnesses the court could convict, and that questioning the defendant about such factual detail was permissible and not barred by Section 235 paragraph two.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 774/2487 (1944)
Where the charge of defaming an official omits to allege the complainant's official status, that defect cannot be cured by a later statement, and the court may not question the defendant to obtain that missing fact, as doing so would breach Section 235.
In a prosecution for defaming an official, the charge failed to state that the complainant held official status. The Supreme Court held the defect could not be supplemented after the fact, and that the court could not question the defendant to establish that element, since doing so to fill the gap in the prosecution's case is prohibited by Section 235.
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 a Thai judge question witnesses directly?
Yes. Under Section 235, the court may question the prosecutor, defendant, or any witness when it thinks fit, as part of its role in finding the truth during trial.
Can the court question the defendant to help the prosecution?
No. Section 235 forbids the court from questioning the defendant solely to supplement a deficient prosecution case, unless the defendant has cited himself as a witness.
What changes if the accused testifies in his own defence?
Once the defendant cites himself as a witness, the protection in paragraph two no longer applies and the court may question him as it would any witness.