Section 23 — Confinement in lieu of imprisonment
English translation
Whoever commits an offense punishable by imprisonment, and in that case the court would impose imprisonment not exceeding three months, if it does not appear that such person has previously been sentenced to imprisonment, or it appears that such person has previously been sentenced to imprisonment but only for an offense committed through negligence or a petty offense, the court may impose confinement not exceeding three months in lieu of that imprisonment.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 23 gives courts a milder alternative to short prison terms for first offenders and minor offenders. Three conditions define its reach: the offense must be one punishable by imprisonment, the term the court would actually impose must not exceed three months, and the offender must have no prior prison sentence except one for a negligence offense or a petty offense. Where these are met, the court may order confinement, a less severe punishment served outside prison, for up to three months in place of imprisonment. In practice the courts frequently apply it in minor traffic and assault matters, substituting confinement for the short imprisonment term they would otherwise impose.
Why this matters in practice
For a defendant facing a short prison term for a minor offense, this section is a realistic path to avoid actual imprisonment: confinement is served outside a prison and is far less disruptive. Eligibility hinges on your record, only prior prison sentences for negligence or petty offenses are ignored, so a clean or lightly blemished record helps. Raising a request for confinement, with mitigating personal circumstances, is worthwhile at sentencing. See our overview of criminal law in Thailand for context on sentencing options.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 178/2567 (2024)
Where the court imposes imprisonment of three months for a minor traffic offense, it may substitute confinement for the full three-month term under Section 23, illustrating the section's ceiling.
After convicting the defendant of a traffic offense and reducing the term to three months' imprisonment for a guilty plea, the court substituted confinement for the same three-month period under Section 23 and suspended the driving licence for six months. The case shows the section applied at its three-month ceiling.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4292/2567 (2024)
In an assault case under Section 295 where the court imposes one month's imprisonment, it may substitute confinement for the same period under Section 23.
The trial court convicted the defendant of assault under Section 295, imposed one month's imprisonment, and changed it to one month's confinement under Section 23; the appellate court affirmed. The case is a straightforward example of confinement substituted for a short imprisonment term for a minor violent offense.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
When can confinement replace imprisonment?
Under Section 23, when the court would impose imprisonment of no more than three months and the offender has no disqualifying prior prison sentence, the court may impose confinement of up to three months instead.
Does a past sentence for a negligence offense disqualify me?
No. Prior imprisonment only for an offense committed through negligence, or for a petty offense, does not bar the court from imposing confinement in lieu of imprisonment under Section 23.