Section 67 — Necessity
English translation
Whoever commits an offence out of necessity:
(1) because he is under compulsion or under a power which he cannot avoid or resist, or
(2) because it is to cause himself or another person to escape from an imminent danger which could not be avoided by any other means, when he did not cause that danger to arise through his own fault,
shall not be punished.
For an offence under this Section, the act must not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances. If it exceeds what is reasonable, 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 67 provides the defence of necessity in Book 1 on Criminal Liability, an excuse that removes punishment rather than a justification. It covers two situations: subsection (1), acting under an unavoidable and irresistible compulsion or power, and subsection (2), acting to escape an imminent danger not of the doer's own making, where no other means was available. Both require a proportionality limit; the act must not exceed what is reasonable, and excess is dealt with by Section 69, which allows the court to reduce the penalty below the statutory minimum. Necessity differs from self-defence under Section 68, which responds to an unlawful attack, whereas necessity may respond to danger from any source. The requirements are strict: mere convenience or delay does not qualify.
Why this matters in practice
Section 67 can wholly excuse an offence, but the bar is high and factual: the defence must show a genuine, imminent, unavoidable situation the accused did not create, with no other realistic option. Courts reject the plea where the accused had time or alternatives, or where the pressure was mere advice or preference rather than an irresistible compulsion. Even a valid necessity is capped by proportionality, and going too far shifts the case to mitigation under Section 69 rather than full excuse. Because necessity is fact-intensive and often misread, anyone relying on it should build the evidence carefully with a Thai lawyer.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 9738/2544 (2001)
Conduct that is not done under an unavoidable, irresistible compulsion or power is not an act committed out of necessity and does not escape punishment under Section 67.
The person accused had recovered court documents that had gone missing from the case file but kept them for a further two to three days before returning them. The Court held this was not conduct under an unavoidable compulsion, so it was not an act of necessity that would escape punishment under Section 67.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
What is the necessity defence under Section 67?
It excuses an offence committed either under an unavoidable, irresistible compulsion or to escape an imminent danger the person did not cause and could not avoid otherwise. If the act is reasonable, there is no punishment.
What happens if the act exceeds what was necessary?
The full excuse is lost, but under Section 69 the court may still inflict a punishment less than that provided by law for the offence to any extent.
Is necessity the same as self-defence?
No. Self-defence under Section 68 responds to an unlawful attack, while necessity under Section 67 may respond to danger from any source and is an excuse from punishment rather than a full justification.