Section 89 — Personal grounds versus offence-nature grounds
English translation
If there is a ground personal to any offender that operates to exempt from punishment, to reduce punishment, or to increase punishment, that ground applies only to that particular offender.
If there is a ground relating to the nature of the offence that operates to exempt from punishment, to reduce punishment, or to increase punishment, that ground applies to every offender.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 89 is a general-part allocation rule in Book 1, applied constantly where several people join in one offence as principals, instigators or supporters. It draws a sharp line between two categories: a ground personal to an offender (for example that offender's own age, relationship to the victim, or personal circumstances) reaches only that offender, whereas a ground rooted in the nature of the offence (a ground in the nature of the case) reaches all co-offenders. In practice the Supreme Court treats an offence-nature ground as one it may extend even to a co-defendant who did not appeal, because it belongs to the case rather than to the individual. The section works together with the principal and supporter provisions in Sections 83 to 86 and with the specific exemption, reduction and increase provisions scattered through the Code.
Why this matters in practice
This section can change outcomes for co-defendants dramatically. If a mitigating or exempting ground belongs to the nature of the offence, it lifts liability for everyone charged in that act, so a defendant who succeeds on appeal can pull a non-appealing co-defendant up with them; a purely personal ground does not travel. When you are one of several accused, it is worth identifying early whether the favourable point is personal or attaches to the case itself, because that classification decides who it protects. A lawyer can map which grounds apply to whom; you can consult a Thai lawyer online to review a multi-defendant matter.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 7086/2559 (2016)
A ground in the nature of the case under Section 89 applies to all offenders in the same act, so the Supreme Court may extend an acquittal or non-punishment to a co-defendant who did not appeal.
The Supreme Court found the point in favour of the appealing defendants was a ground in the nature of the case, and under Section 89 it extended the result to the co-defendant who had not filed an appeal, so that defendant also was not punished.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 8701/2547 (2004)
Because grounds in the nature of the case under Section 89 apply to every offender in the same act, the court's power to correct the judgment reaches a co-defendant who did not appeal.
The issues in the case were treated as grounds in the nature of the case under Section 89, which apply to all co-offenders, so the Supreme Court exercised its power to extend the corrected judgment to the co-defendant who had not appealed.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 997/2544 (2001)
Where the nature of the offence and circumstances form a ground in the nature of the case under Section 89, the court may extend a favourable disposition, such as a suspended sentence, to a co-defendant who did not appeal.
Treating the nature of the offence as a ground in the nature of the case, the Supreme Court extended a suspension of the imprisonment sentence to the co-defendant who had not appealed, in line with Section 89.
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 difference between a personal ground and an offence-nature ground?
A personal ground depends on an individual offender's own situation and helps or burdens only that person. A ground in the nature of the offence attaches to the act itself and applies to every offender involved.
Can a co-defendant who did not appeal still benefit?
Yes, if the favourable point is a ground in the nature of the offence under Section 89, the court may extend the benefit to a co-defendant who did not appeal.