Section 13: Cessation where a later law abolishes the measure
Statutory text (Thai original)
ถ้าตามบทบัญญัติของกฎหมายที่บัญญัติในภายหลังได้มีการยกเลิกวิธีการเพื่อความปลอดภัยใด และถ้าผู้ใดถูกใช้บังคับวิธีการเพื่อความปลอดภัยนั้นอยู่ ก็ให้ศาลสั่งระงับการใช้บังคับวิธีการเพื่อความปลอดภัยนั้นเสีย เมื่อสำนวนความปรากฏแก่ศาล หรือเมื่อผู้นั้น ผู้แทนโดยชอบธรรมของผู้นั้น ผู้อนุบาลของผู้นั้นหรือพนักงานอัยการร้องขอ
English translation
If, under the provisions of a law enacted afterwards, any measure of safety has been abolished, and any person is subject to the application of that measure of safety, the court shall order the application of that measure of safety to cease, when it appears to the court from the record, or when that person, that person's legal representative, that person's curator, or the public prosecutor applies.
ThaiLawOnline translation, written from the Thai original and verified
Firm annotation
Section 13 applies to safety measures the same favourable-law logic that Section 2 applies to penalties on abolition. Where a later law removes a safety measure from the statute book, a measure already being applied loses its legal basis, and the court shall order its application to cease. That is a duty, not a discretion: the section says the court shall so order, and it does so either when the position appears to the court from the case record or on the application of the person subject to the measure, that person's legal representative, that person's curator, or the public prosecutor. It complements Section 12, which requires statutory authority for any safety measure at the time of judgment, by ensuring that a measure does not survive the repeal of its legal basis. Sections 14 and 15 cover the related situations of a later law changing the conditions for a measure, and of a punishment later converted into a safety measure; in both of those the court is expressly given power to make such order as it thinks fit, and that contrast is what fixes the reading of Section 13.
Why this matters in practice
Section 13 gives a person still subject to a safety measure a direct route to relief when the law changes: if a later law has abolished that measure, the court shall order its application to cease. Because the section imposes a duty rather than a discretion, the argument is not that cessation would be appropriate but that the statutory condition is met, so what has to be put before the court is the later law abolishing the measure and proof that the measure is still being applied. The application need not come from the person affected: that person's legal representative, that person's curator, or the public prosecutor may equally apply, and no application is needed at all once the position appears to the court from the case record. It applies to Penal Code safety measures; a similarly numbered section in another statute is a different provision and should not be confused with this one.
Cited in 35 Supreme Court decisions (1958 to 2025)
Selected citing decisions
- Decision 3161/2568 (2025)
- Decision 2318/2565 (2022)
- Decision 9161/2553 (2010)
- Decision 3469/2553 (2010)
- Decision 3195/2553 (2010)
- Decision 7978-7979/2553 (2010)
- Decision 7950/2549 (2006)
- Decision 584/2549 (2006)
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.
Most often cited alongside
- Section 78 17
- Section 91 13
- Section 83 12
- Section 157 11
- Section 11 9
- Section 90 8
Sections that appear in the same judgments as this one most often. The figure is the number of decisions.
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 safety measure be cancelled if the law changes?
Yes, and it is a duty rather than a discretion. Under Section 13, where a later law has abolished a safety measure that is being applied to a person, the court shall order its application to cease. The court does so when the position appears to it from the case record, or on the application of the person concerned, that person's legal representative or curator, or the public prosecutor.
Who can ask for revocation under Section 13?
Four people may apply: the person subjected to the safety measure, that person's legal representative, that person's curator, and the public prosecutor. The court may also act without any application, but the trigger is the position appearing to it from the case record rather than the court's own view.
Related guides on ThaiLawOnline
Cite this section
-
Plain citation
Penal Code, s. 13 (Thailand) -
Academic citation
Penal Code (Thailand), s. 13. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-13/ (accessed 6 September 2026). -
Thai citation
ป.อ. มาตรา 13 -
Permalink
https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-13/ -
Embed on your site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-13/"><p>If, under the provisions of a law enacted afterwards, any measure of safety has been abolished, and any person is subject to the application of that measure of safety, the court shall order the application of that measure of safety to cease, when it appears…</p><footer>Penal Code, s. 13 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-13/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.