Section 70 — Acting under an official's order
English translation
Whoever acts in compliance with the order of an official, even though the order is unlawful, shall not be punished if he has a duty to comply, or believes in good faith that he has a duty to comply, except where he knows that the order is unlawful.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 70 excuses a person who carries out an official's order in Book 1 on Criminal Liability. It applies where the actor either has an actual duty to comply or holds a good-faith belief that he must, and it extends even to unlawful orders, subject to one crucial exception: it does not protect a person who knows the order is unlawful. Two boundaries appear in the case law. First, there must be a genuine order, not mere advice or a request for cooperation, which the person is free to accept or decline. Second, the excuse rests on good faith, so knowledge of illegality defeats it, though acting on advice may still negate the specific intent required for some offences. The provision protects subordinates acting within a hierarchy of authority while withholding protection from knowing participation in unlawful acts.
Why this matters in practice
Section 70 is the provision a subordinate, official, or employee relies on when charged for carrying out orders. It only works if two things hold: what was received was a real order (not advice one could ignore) and the actor did not know it was unlawful. Where the instruction was merely a request for cooperation, the excuse fails, though the same facts may sometimes show the person lacked the intent the offence requires. Anyone charged after following instructions should preserve evidence of the order, the chain of authority, and their good-faith belief, and take criminal law advice on whether Section 70 or a lack-of-intent argument is the stronger route.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 6344/2531 (1988)
A mere request for cooperation from an official is not an order within Section 70, so it does not excuse a person who acts on it; the person remains liable for the offence.
A district officer had only asked for cooperation, which the second defendant was free to follow or not. The Court held this did not amount to an order under Section 70, so it did not relieve him of liability, and his intentional damage to the plaintiff's property was an offence under Section 358.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 387/2512 (1969)
A person who believes in good faith that he has authority to act on an order is exempt from punishment under Section 70.
Officers went to arrest the deceased, who stabbed the defendant first, and the defendant fired back to protect himself. The Court held that the defendant believed the order was lawful and had authority to make the arrest, so he was exempt from punishment under Section 70, and his act was not excessive.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Am I excused if I followed an official's unlawful order?
Under Section 70, yes, if you had a duty to comply or believed in good faith you did, unless you knew the order was unlawful. Knowledge of illegality removes the excuse.
Does advice from an official count as an order under Section 70?
No. The courts hold that a mere request for cooperation or advice, which the person is free to follow or not, is not an order, so Section 70 does not excuse the act.