Section 64: Ignorance of law is no excuse
Statutory text (Thai original)
บุคคลจะแก้ตัวว่าไม่รู้กฎหมายเพื่อให้พ้นจากความรับผิดในทางอาญาไม่ได้ แต่ถ้าศาลเห็นว่า ตามสภาพและพฤติการณ์ ผู้กระทำความผิดอาจจะไม่รู้ว่ากฎหมายบัญญัติว่าการกระทำนั้นเป็นความผิด ศาลอาจอนุญาตให้แสดงพยานหลักฐานต่อศาล และถ้าศาลเชื่อว่า ผู้กระทำไม่รู้ว่ากฎหมายบัญญัติไว้เช่นนั้น ศาลจะลงโทษน้อยกว่าที่กฎหมายกำหนดไว้สำหรับความผิดนั้นเพียงใดก็ได้
English translation
A person cannot excuse himself as not knowing the law in order to be relieved from criminal liability. However, if the Court is of the opinion that, according to the condition and circumstances, the doer might not have known that the law provided the act to be an offence, the Court may allow evidence to be produced before it, and if the Court believes that the doer did not know that the law so provided, the Court may inflict a punishment less than that provided by law for such offence to any extent.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 64 states the maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse, preserving the general rule that liability does not depend on the doer's knowledge of the statute. Its second limb is a narrow mitigation, not a defence: where the condition and circumstances make genuine ignorance plausible, the court may permit evidence and, if convinced, reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum to any extent. This differs sharply from Section 62, which concerns ignorance or mistake of fact, not of law; a mistaken belief about what the law provides falls under Section 64 and at most mitigates. The provision is regularly invoked, and usually rejected, by defendants unfamiliar with regulatory or specialised statutes.
Why this matters in practice
For a foreigner or first-time defendant charged under an unfamiliar Thai statute, Section 64 offers no defence, but it can open a route to a reduced sentence. The mitigation is discretionary and conditional: the defence must actively ask the court for permission to lead evidence of genuine ignorance, and simply asserting that one did not know the law will not work, especially where a conclusive legal presumption applies. Because the burden is real and the outcome uncertain, expats facing regulatory or specialised charges should get Thai legal advice early on whether a Section 64 application is realistic.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4366/2566 (2023)
A defendant cannot escape criminal liability by claiming not to have known that a statute applied; ignorance of the law is no excuse under Section 64.
The defendant, a Hmong hill-tribe member, argued he did not know a royal decree had brought the Building Control Act into force in his area and so lacked intent. The Court held this was an impermissible plea of ignorance of the law under Section 64 and rejected it.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2903/2548 (2005)
To obtain a reduced punishment for ignorance of the law under Section 64, the defendant must ask the court's permission to produce evidence; ignorance itself provides no relief.
In a methamphetamine case governed by a conclusive statutory presumption of possession for sale, the Court quoted Section 64 in full and noted that the defendant had not sought the court's permission to lead evidence of not knowing the law, so no reduction under Section 64 was available.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 11 Supreme Court decisions (1995 to 2023)
Selected citing decisions
- Decision 4366/2566 (2023)
- Decision 3510/2555 (2012)
- Decision 2903/2548 (2005)
- Decision 8945/2544 (2001)
- Decision 5333/2538 (1995)
- Decision 5681/2544 (2001)
- Decision 1106/2544 (2001)
- Decision 7893/2559 (2016)
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 8
- Section 29 6
- Section 30 6
- Section 91 5
- Section 56 4
- Section 83 4
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 I avoid conviction by saying I did not know the law?
No. Section 64 states that ignorance of the law is not an excuse relieving criminal liability. At most, if the court believes you genuinely did not know, it may reduce the punishment.
How does a defendant benefit from Section 64?
The defendant must ask the court for permission to present evidence that, given the circumstances, he might not have known the act was an offence. If the court is convinced, it may impose a punishment below the statutory level to any extent.
Related guides on ThaiLawOnline
Cite this section
-
Plain citation
Penal Code, s. 64 (Thailand) -
Academic citation
Penal Code (Thailand), s. 64. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-64/ (accessed 17 August 2026). -
Thai citation
ป.อ. มาตรา 64 -
Permalink
https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-64/ -
Embed on your site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-64/"><p>A person cannot excuse himself as not knowing the law in order to be relieved from criminal liability. However, if the Court is of the opinion that, according to the condition and circumstances, the doer might not have known that the law provided the act…</p><footer>Penal Code, s. 64 (Thailand) — <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-64/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.