Section 330 — Truth as a defence to defamation
English translation
In the case of defamation, if the person charged with committing the offence proves that the imputation alleged to be defamatory is true, that person shall not be punished.
However, proof shall not be admitted if the imputation alleged to be defamatory concerns a personal matter and such proof would not be of benefit to the public.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 330 provides the truth defence to defamation, and it is important to note its limits. Proving the imputation true does not mean the statement was not defamatory; rather, the defendant is exempted from punishment. This makes truth an excuse from penalty, distinct from the good-faith exemptions in Section 329 which negate the offence itself. The second paragraph carves out an important exception: proof is barred where the imputation concerns a purely personal matter and proving it would bring no public benefit. Thus a true but private and gratuitous imputation can still be punished. The distinction between a private matter and one of public concern is often decisive, and the defendant carries the burden of proving truth.
Why this matters in practice
If you intend to run truth as a defence, plan for it early: you carry the burden of proving the imputation, and you must first clear the public-benefit gate, because purely private truths cannot even be proved. Where the imputation concerns matters like extortion or corruption, courts have treated it as a matter of public interest that the defendant is entitled to prove. Truth under Section 330 only removes punishment, so it is often argued together with the good-faith grounds in Section 329, which if successful defeat the offence outright. Because it is fact-intensive, evidence gathering is critical before trial.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1362/2514 (1971)
A defendant charged with defamation may prove the truth of the imputation to escape punishment under Section 330 where the matter is not purely personal but concerns the public, such as an allegation of extortion or taking bribes.
The defendants had alleged extortion and bribe taking. The appellate court held this was not a personal matter but concerned public peace, so the defendants were entitled to prove the truth under Section 330, and it remanded the case for their evidence to be heard.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
If what I said is true, can I still be convicted of defamation?
Truth under Section 330 exempts you from punishment, but only if the imputation is not a purely personal matter without public benefit. A true but private and gratuitous statement can still be punished.
Who must prove the truth of the statement?
The defendant carries the burden. Under Section 330 the person charged must prove the imputation is true, and must first show the matter is one the public may benefit from having proved.