Criminal litigation in Thailand involves a multi-stage process governed by the Thai Criminal Procedure Code and related laws. This overview provides legal professionals, general readers, and foreign defendants with an accessible yet authoritative guide to the key stages, timelines, and roles in Thai criminal proceedings. Recent legal reforms – such as those concerning digital evidence and bail – are also noted to ensure the information reflects current practice.
Stages of Criminal Proceedings
In Thailand, criminal cases progress through distinct stages, from the initial arrest and investigation to the trial and potential appeals. Each stage has specific procedures and time frames defined by law. Notably, Thailand’s system is civil-law based and does not use juries, meaning judges oversee all proceedings and determine the verdict. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while defendants enjoy rights such as the presumption of innocence and the opportunity to contest the evidence. The following are the main stages of a criminal case in Thailand:
Arrest and Detention
An arrest in Thailand usually requires a court-issued warrant, but there are exceptions allowing warrantless arrests if a suspect is caught in the act of committing a crime or in urgent situations (e.g. about to commit an offense or likely to flee). Once arrested, a suspect may be held in police custody for up to 48 hours (not including travel time to the station) before being brought before a court. During this initial detention, police officers (investigators) may question the suspect and gather preliminary evidence. If the investigation cannot be completed within 48 hours, the law requires that the suspect be taken to court and a remand (detention) order be sought for further detention. The court will consider the seriousness of the charge when deciding whether to extend detention (see Detention Periods below for time limits). At this early stage, the accused has the right to apply for bail to secure release from custody. Bail can be requested from the police (if the suspect is still in police custody) or from the court once the suspect is remanded to judicial custody. However, the court may deny bail if it believes there is a risk the accused would abscond, tamper with evidence, or pose a danger to others. In practice, release on bail for serious charges is not automatic and often depends on the circumstances of the case and the sureties (guarantees) provided.
Investigation
After an arrest (or upon receipt of a criminal complaint), the investigation phase begins. If a complaint is first lodged with the police, an investigating officer will initiate an inquiry into the allegations. This involves collecting evidence, interviewing witnesses (including the complainant and any victims), and taking the suspect’s statement. The police compile an investigation file with all evidence and will form an opinion on whether the case has merit. If the police determine there is sufficient evidence of an offense, they will press charges and forward the case file, along with their opinion, to the public prosecutor’s office. During the investigation, if the suspect was not initially arrested (for example, in cases initiated by a complaint without arrest), the police might summon the suspect for questioning. Should the police seek to detain a suspect during the investigation, they must submit a request to the court justifying the need for continued custody (subject to the detention time limits mentioned earlier). Throughout the investigation, the suspect (now an “accused”) has the right to legal counsel and to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination.
At the conclusion of the police investigation, the public prosecutor reviews the police file to decide whether to formally prosecute. The prosecutor may issue an indictment and file the case in court if the evidence is deemed sufficient. Conversely, if the prosecutor finds the evidence insufficient or the case not in the public interest, they can decline to prosecute, in which case the accused is released (though in certain scenarios a victim can still pursue a private prosecution). Thailand allows private individuals (usually the victim of a crime) to directly file a criminal case with the court as a private criminal action, without going through the police/prosecutor route. In a private prosecution, the court will hold a preliminary hearing (sometimes called an investigative hearing) where the private complainant must show enough evidence or witness testimony to establish probable cause. If the court finds the complaint lacks merit at this stage, it will dismiss the case; if sufficient basis is shown, the court accepts the case for trial and the accused will be arraigned (asked to enter a plea). This mechanism ensures that unfounded private accusations do not easily proceed to full trial.
Trial Process
Once the public prosecutor formally files charges (or the court accepts a private complaint), the case enters the trial stage. The first court appearance is typically an arraignment or plea hearing, where the charges are read to the defendant in court and the defendant is asked to plead guilty or not guilty. At this stage, the judge also verifies that the charge is properly framed under the law and will schedule future trial dates if the case proceeds. It is common for the court to hold a case management meeting or order both parties to submit lists of their evidence and witnesses before the main trial hearings. In fact, Thai law requires both the prosecution and defense to disclose their witness lists and evidence in advance (the prosecution typically 15 days before trial, and the defense by the day before the trial starts). This pre-trial exchange ensures both sides have an opportunity to prepare and prevents trial by surprise, reflecting the adversarial yet fair nature of Thai criminal procedure.
During the trial hearings, the prosecution presents its case first since the burden of proof lies with the state. The prosecutor will make an opening statement outlining the case and then call witnesses and introduce evidence (documents, physical evidence, digital records, etc.) to support the charges. Each prosecution witness is subject to cross-examination by the defense. After the prosecution rests its case, the defense is given the opportunity to present its evidence and witnesses to rebut the allegations. The accused (defendant) is not required to testify, but may choose to do so. Throughout the trial, the presiding judge(s) maintain order and ensure the rules of evidence are followed. Thailand does not use a jury, so one or more judges hear the evidence and act as finders of fact and law. (In courts of first instance, typically a panel of two judges will hear serious criminal cases, though for less serious matters a single judge may proceed.) Judges in Thailand may also pose questions to witnesses for clarification during the hearing, but they cannot introduce new witnesses on their own – all evidence must come from the parties. Both prosecution and defense can object to improper evidence, and if the court excludes any evidence, the judge will note the reasons in the trial record (an important point for appeals).
After all evidence has been presented and witnesses heard, the trial portion concludes. The court will then schedule a date for judgment delivery. In many cases, the judges do not issue a decision immediately at the close of the last witness; instead, they take time to deliberate and write a judgment. On the judgment day, the court will convene to read the verdict and sentence. The judgment will state whether the defendant is found guilty or not guilty on each charge, and if guilty, what the sentence will be. The decision must be based solely on the evidence and testimony presented during the trial (and any confessions or guilty pleas). It usually takes around one year for a case to go through all hearings in the court of first instance and reach a judgment, though simple cases can be faster and very complex cases might take longer. Once the judgment is read in court, that completes the trial stage at the first-instance court. The parties are then informed of their rights to appeal.
Appeals Process
After a judgment by a trial court (Court of First Instance), either party (the convicted defendant or the prosecution if the defendant was acquitted or received a lighter sentence than expected) may generally appeal the decision. Appeals in Thailand are not trials de novo; they are a review of the lower court’s proceedings and judgment. Typically, a party must file a notice of appeal within 30 days from the date the trial court’s judgment is pronounced or delivered. The case will then be reviewed by a higher court – the Court of Appeal (or a Regional Appeals Court, depending on the jurisdiction). The appellate court conducts no new witness hearings; it bases its review on the trial record (transcripts, evidence, and the lower court’s findings). The appeal must generally point out legal errors or significant factual mistakes in the trial court’s decision. After the Court of Appeal issues its ruling, there is a further opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court of Thailand (also known as the Dika Court). However, not every case will be accepted by the Supreme Court – under current practice, the Supreme Court has discretion to choose cases that involve significant points of law or matters of public interest. In other words, a second appeal to the Supreme Court is not automatic; permission must be granted or jurisdiction invoked under specific conditions. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it will ultimately issue a final judgment which is binding. The appeals process and timeline are explained in more detail in Appeal Process Timeline below. It’s important to note that throughout any appeals, a defendant may request to remain on bail pending the outcome (at the appellate court’s discretion). Once all appeals are exhausted or if no appeal is filed within the allowed time, the case becomes final (res judicata), and any sentence will be executed.
Detention Periods
Thai law strictly regulates how long a suspect can be held in custody before trial, and these periods vary with the seriousness of the alleged offense. If police and prosecutors have not completed the investigation and formally charged the suspect within the initial detention window, they must seek court approval to continue holding the suspect. The Criminal Procedure Code provides maximum detention durations (pre-charge or pre-trial detention, often called remand periods) based on the offense’s potential penalties:
✓ Less Severe Offenses: For offenses punishable by not more than 6 months of imprisonment or a fine up to 500 baht (or both), the court may authorize only one detention period of up to 7 days. In practice, this means minor offenses (petty offenses) can only justify a short detention before the suspect must be either charged or released.
✓ Moderate Offenses: For offenses with a maximum punishment of more than 6 months but not more than 10 years in prison, or a fine over 500 baht (which covers a broad range of mid-level crimes), the court can approve successive detention periods of up to 12 days each, totaling no more than 48 days. In other words, the investigators may request renewals of detention (typically in 12-day increments) but the combined time cannot exceed about 2 months before charges are filed or the suspect is freed.
✓ Severe Offenses: For offenses punishable by a maximum of over 10 years’ imprisonment (including serious felonies such as rape, serious drug crimes, or murder, which may carry 20 years, life imprisonment, or even death), the court may allow successive 12-day detention periods, up to a total of 84 days. This roughly equates to 7 increments (as 12 days × 7 = 84 days), or about 3 months maximum detention before indictment. Even in these grave cases, if the prosecution cannot file formal charges within 84 days, the law mandates that the suspect be released from custody.
These time limits ensure that suspects are not held indefinitely without charge. Each extension of detention must be justified to and approved by a court, and the suspect typically has the right to oppose extended detention or to request bail during these periods. If the investigation is still ongoing as the end of the maximum detention period approaches and no charge has been filed, the court must release the suspect (though the investigation can technically continue, the person cannot be kept jailed without formal charges beyond these limits). Once charges are filed and the case is in court, if the defendant is not granted bail, they can continue to be held in custody during the trial and any appeals, but such post-charge detention is no longer limited by the above pre-charge periods (instead, the overall principle of a fair and reasonably speedy trial applies).
Roles in a Criminal Trial
Several key participants have defined roles in the Thai criminal justice process. Unlike some jurisdictions, Thailand does not have a jury; judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys (along with in some cases, a private co-plaintiff or victim’s counsel) are the main actors in the courtroom. Understanding each role is crucial:
Prosecution
The public prosecutor (state attorney) carries the responsibility of proving the case against the accused. The prosecutor’s duty is to present facts, evidence, and witness testimony to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In court, the prosecutor will outline the charges and the supporting evidence, and seek a conviction and appropriate punishment as prescribed by law. All evidence must be presented through witness testimony or exhibits during the trial; for example, documents, forensic reports, and increasingly digital evidence (like CCTV footage or electronic records) can be submitted, subject to the court’s acceptance. The prosecutor must also follow procedural rules – disclosing evidence to the defense as required and respecting the accused’s rights. If the evidence is not sufficient to meet the high burden of proof, the prosecution risks an acquittal. It’s important to note that while most criminal cases are prosecuted by public prosecutors, Thai law (CPC Section 28) allows private individuals (victims) to act as prosecutors in what’s known as a private prosecution. In such cases, the private complainant takes on the prosecutorial role, though the court maintains close oversight (including the preliminary hearing mentioned earlier to screen the case). Whether public or private, the prosecution’s overarching role remains to ensure that justice is served by proving the truth of the allegations in accordance with the law and evidence.
Defense
The defendant (accused) and their defense lawyer have the role of protecting the accused’s rights and challenging the prosecution’s case. Thai law guarantees fundamental rights to those accused of crimes, in line with international standards. These include the presumption of innocence, the right to remain silent (not to self-incriminate), the right to legal counsel (with a lawyer provided for indigent defendants in serious cases), and the right to bail as recognized in the Constitution. During trial, the defense can test the prosecution’s evidence through cross-examination of witnesses and may object to improper evidence or procedure. The constitution explicitly provides the defense the right to cross-examine opposing witnesses and to present defense witnesses and evidence in rebuttal. The defense strategy may involve casting doubt on the prosecution’s proof – remembering that if there is reasonable doubt, the defendant must be acquitted. A defendant may plead guilty or not guilty; if pleading not guilty, the defense will aim to disprove or undermine the prosecution’s case. If pleading guilty, the trial moves directly to considering the appropriate punishment (with the benefit that Thai law allows sentence reductions for cooperative guilty pleas). The defense lawyer’s role is also to ensure the trial is fair – e.g. that translation is provided if the defendant does not understand Thai, and that the court follows all legal procedures. Overall, the defense serves as a crucial counterweight to the prosecution, advocating for the accused’s rights and innocence (or lesser liability) within the bounds of law.
Judges
In the Thai criminal court, judges are the arbiters of law and fact (since there is no jury). A case is typically heard by a panel of one or two judges at the trial level, and by multiple judges at the appellate levels. The judges’ role is to ensure the trial is conducted fairly and in accordance with the law, to weigh the evidence presented by both sides, and ultimately to render a verdict and, if applicable, impose a sentence. Because there is no jury, the judges must record their reasoning in a written judgment, and their factual and legal findings are subject to review on appeal. Judges in Thailand are career professionals who undergo extensive training. There is no jury system in Thailand – all cases are decided by judges (for example, a murder trial might have two judges who together determine the outcome). During proceedings, judges have the authority to maintain order and can question witnesses for clarification, though they remain neutral and do not take on the role of prosecutor or defense. They cannot introduce new evidence on their own initiative (except during special preliminary inquiries in private prosecutions or certain inquests), so they rely on what the parties bring to court. After hearing a case, the judges confer and reach a decision by applying the relevant law to the facts as they find them. In a panel, the verdict may be by majority vote. The judge’s responsibilities also include issuing rulings on any motions (e.g., bail requests, evidentiary objections, procedural petitions) during the case. Thai judges are bound by the law and also consider past Supreme Court precedents as persuasive (though not strictly binding) guidance. In sentencing, judges have discretion within the bounds of the Penal Code, and they will consider factors like the severity of the offense, any mitigating circumstances, and the defendant’s background. Overall, the judge’s role is pivotal: they are the fact-finder, law-giver, and the protector of due process in the criminal trial.
Outcome of Criminal Trials
At the conclusion of a criminal trial in Thailand, the outcome will be either a conviction (guilty verdict) on one or more charges or an acquittal (not guilty). The court will pronounce the verdict publicly, and in case of a conviction, will also announce the sentence. For foreign defendants, an additional consideration after the trial is the possibility of deportation. This section explains each of these outcomes and their implications:
Guilty Verdict (Conviction)
If the court finds the defendant guilty, it will convict and then impose a sentence as provided by law. Possible sentences under Thai law include: a term of imprisonment (jail or prison time), a fine, or in some cases both imprisonment and fine. For the most serious offenses, the law also permits life imprisonment or even the death penalty (for example, certain drug trafficking or aggravated murder cases can carry a death sentence, though executions are rare and the sentence may be commuted). However, not all convictions result in immediate jail time — Thailand’s Penal Code allows courts to issue a suspended sentence in certain circumstances. If a defendant is a first-time offender and the court imposes a relatively light prison term (by law, not more than 3 years of imprisonment), the judge may order the sentence “suspended”. A suspended sentence means the defendant does not have to serve the time in prison immediately; instead, they will be on probation for a period (up to 5 years as determined by the court). The court typically considers factors like the offender’s background, remorse, cooperation, and the nature of the crime in deciding on suspension. Conditions such as regularly reporting to a probation officer, performing community service, or undergoing rehabilitation can be imposed during the suspension period. If the offender complies with all conditions and does not re-offend during that period, the prison sentence may never be enforced. On the other hand, if the offender violates the conditions or commits a new crime, the suspension can be revoked and the original prison term enforced. In addition to incarceration or fines, the court might impose ancillary orders upon conviction – for example, seizure of assets for certain crimes, or requiring compensation to be paid to the victim (though compensation is often pursued via a separate civil claim, which can be joined with the criminal case). After a guilty verdict, the defendant has the right to appeal the conviction and/or the sentence (see Appeals section), and they may apply for bail pending appeal, though granting post-conviction bail is again at the court’s discretion. If no appeal is filed within the permitted time or all appeals are exhausted, the conviction becomes final and the sentence will be carried out. For a prison sentence, this means the defendant is transferred to serve time in a correctional facility. Thai prisons are notoriously tough, so many defendants seek to either appeal or obtain a suspended sentence if eligible. Additionally, a convicted person (especially in minor cases) might be eligible for royal pardon or sentence reduction in one of the periodic amnesties, but such outcomes are beyond the court’s control and are granted by the executive branch.
Not Guilty Verdict (Acquittal)
If the court finds the evidence insufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it will render a verdict of not guilty, and the defendant is acquitted of the charges. In practical terms, an acquittal results in the immediate release of the defendant from custody (if they were detained) and exoneration of the charges. The court will order that the defendant be discharged and any bail or bond that was posted is returned (minus administrative fees, if any). Under Thai law, the prosecution (or private complainant in a private case) has the right to appeal an acquittal to a higher court, so an acquittal in the Court of First Instance might not be the end of the case if the prosecution believes a legal error was made. However, if the deadline for the prosecution to appeal passes without an appeal, or if the highest court upholds the acquittal, the defendant is finally cleared. Thailand’s system thus differs from absolute double jeopardy rules in some common-law countries – here, a final acquittal still stands, but an initial acquittal can be reviewed by higher courts upon appeal. For the defendant, a not guilty verdict means they leave the court without a conviction, and any record of the arrest or charge is typically not treated as a criminal conviction. They are free to continue their life, and if they are a foreigner, they may remain in Thailand as long as their visa/status allows. (One caveat: if a foreign defendant had been in custody throughout the trial and their visa expired during that time, they could technically be considered an immigration violator upon release – in practice, such individuals are usually taken to immigration detention to sort out their status, as explained below.) Acquitted persons may sometimes face social or reputational challenges after a trial, but legally they are entitled to the presumption of innocence restored. In theory, they could seek compensation for wrongful detention or malicious prosecution, though that is a separate civil matter and not common in Thailand.
Deportation for Foreign Defendants
For foreign defendants, a criminal case outcome can carry immigration consequences. Thailand reserves the right to deport foreigners who have been convicted of crimes, especially if the crime is serious or if the person is deemed undesirable. In many instances, a foreigner who is convicted (even if they receive a suspended sentence or have completed a prison term) will be sent to immigration authorities for deportation processing. Thai law (Immigration Act) gives the government broad authority to deport non-citizens who violate laws or who no longer have a legal right to remain in Thailand. In practice, upon release from prison (or upon a suspended sentence or fine payment), a convicted foreigner is often transferred to the Immigration Detention Center (IDC) in Bangkok to await deportation. They will remain in immigration custody until they can be removed from the country. The deportation process requires the individual to have a valid passport or travel document and a flight or travel arrangement to leave Thailand. The cost of deportation (travel ticket) is usually the responsibility of the deportee; the Thai government will not pay for the airfare. Typically, the person’s embassy can assist in arranging a new passport if the original has expired or is held by the court, and family or friends may need to arrange funds for a plane ticket. Once travel documents are ready, Thai Immigration will put the person on a flight out of Thailand to their home country (or another country that admits them). The individual is also usually blacklisted from re-entering Thailand. The duration of blacklisting can range from a few years to life, depending on the severity of the offense. In many serious cases, the blacklist is permanent (“persona non grata”). It’s worth noting that even in cases where a foreigner is found not guilty, if they had been detained and their permission to stay (visa) lapsed, they might be taken to immigration custody for overstay and then deported on that administrative basis. Foreign defendants should therefore coordinate with their lawyer and embassy on their legal status in Thailand following a trial. As a general rule: any foreigner convicted of a crime in Thailand should anticipate deportation after court proceedings, and make preparations accordingly (such as securing their passport and funds). Once deported, returning to Thailand will only be possible if the blacklist period expires or is lifted by special approval.
Appeal Process Timeline
After the initial trial and judgment, the Thai criminal procedure provides avenues for appeal to higher courts. The appellate process has specific timelines and procedural steps that must be followed. Understanding these timelines is crucial for defendants considering an appeal (as well as for the prosecution in the event of an acquittal or dissatisfaction with the sentence). Recent reforms, such as the 2023 Act on Timeframe of Judicial Proceedings, have also sought to expedite the handling of appeals. Below is a breakdown of the appeals process and typical timelines at each stage:
The Supreme Court (San Dika) is the final appellate court for criminal cases, hearing only select significant matters after the Court of Appeal’s judgment. Appeals must progress through the hierarchy: from the trial court to the Appeals Court, and then to the Supreme Court if permitted. Each level has its own timeline and criteria.
1. From Initial Verdict to Filing an Appeal: Once the trial court (Court of First Instance) has delivered its judgment, an aggrieved party (defendant or prosecutor) must act quickly to initiate an appeal. The law allows 30 days from the date the judgment is read to submit a notice of appeal. This one-month window can sometimes be extended by the court for good cause (for instance, if trial transcripts are delayed or if the defendant needs time to secure an appellate lawyer), but such extensions are discretionary. The appeal notice, typically prepared as a formal legal brief, is filed with the same court that issued the judgment. That court will then forward the appeal, along with the case file and trial record, to the appropriate appellate court. It’s important that the appeal document clearly specifies the grounds of appeal, such as alleged errors of law, significant mistakes in fact-finding, or other issues that affected the verdict. The filing of an appeal generally suspends the execution of the trial court’s sentence for the time being. For example, if a defendant is in custody and seeks to appeal, they can also apply for continued or new bail during the appeal – though, as always, bail pending appeal is not guaranteed. Timeline: Filing within 30 days is mandatory (with rare extensions). Missing this deadline typically forfeits the right to appeal, making the trial verdict final.
2. Appeal at the Court of Appeal: The first-level appeal will be heard by the Court of Appeal (or a Regional Appeals Court if outside Bangkok, or a specialized Appeals Division for certain cases). Once the appeal is received, the Appeals Court does not hold a new trial or call witnesses; instead, a panel of appellate judges reviews the case file, trial transcript, evidence, and the arguments raised in the appeal briefs. The Appeals Court’s role is to determine whether the lower court’s decision was correct in law and (to a more limited extent) in fact. In general, the Appeals Court will re-examine legal issues (e.g. whether the law was applied correctly or whether procedural rights were respected). It may also review factual findings, especially if the appellant argues that the trial court seriously misconstrued the evidence or if new evidence has emerged (though introduction of truly new evidence on appeal is rare and only allowed under special circumstances). There are no oral arguments in most appeal cases; the decision is based on written submissions. The timeline for an Appeals Court decision can vary. Historically, appeals might take several months to over a year to be resolved, depending on case complexity and court backlog. However, under a 2023 judicial timeframe regulation, Courts of Appeal are encouraged to conclude appeals in around 6 months for typical cases (with quicker timelines for simple or urgent cases). In practice, many appeals are indeed resolved within roughly a year. During this period, the appellant may occasionally be required to attend court if there’s a procedural hearing (for example, to extend bail or to hear the appellate judgment when it’s delivered). When the Appeals Court reaches a decision, it can affirm the trial court (upholding the conviction or acquittal and sentence), reverse the decision (e.g. overturn a conviction to an acquittal, or vice versa), or modify it (e.g. find the defendant guilty of a lesser offense or adjust the sentence). The Appeals Court will provide a written judgment with its reasoning. Both the defendant and the prosecution will be informed of the outcome, and the judgment will be officially read in court.
3. Appeal to the Supreme Court (Dika Court): If either party is unsatisfied with the Appeals Court’s decision, a further (final) appeal to the Supreme Court of Thailand (locally called the Dika Court) is possible only under certain conditions. Unlike the first appeal, the Supreme Court’s review is discretionary – permission to appeal must be granted by either the Appeals Court or the Supreme Court itself, which is typically limited to cases that involve a significant question of law, an issue of broad public interest, or a clear miscarriage of justice. The process begins by filing a petition for leave to appeal (or in some cases a direct appeal if allowed by law) within 30 days of the Appeals Court judgment (the timeframe is similar to the first appeal). The lower court will decide whether to forward the case to the Supreme Court. Often, the Appeals Court will allow the petition to proceed if the legal issues merit it, but if it does not, it will issue a denial. Even if the lower court denies, the appellant can contest that denial to the Supreme Court itself. Once the case is in the Supreme Court, a panel of Supreme Court justices will review the petition and the lower courts’ records. The Supreme Court focuses on questions of law; it generally will not disturb factual findings unless there has been a grievous error or the findings are unsupported by evidence. The Supreme Court has the power to dismiss the appeal without a full hearing if it finds the issues raised are not significant – in such instances, the Appeals Court decision stands as final. If the Supreme Court accepts the case, the opposing party may file a response brief, and the Supreme Court will eventually issue a ruling which could affirm, reverse, or modify the outcome. Timeline: Supreme Court appeals can be lengthy. It is not uncommon for a Dika appeal to take 1-2 years or more to reach resolution, partly due to the heavy caseload and careful scrutiny of issues. However, the 2023 judicial reforms also call for improved efficiency in the Supreme Court. There is now guidance suggesting that if the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal, it should strive to decide the case within about 6 months from when it receives the file (though this is not always achieved in complex cases). During this time, if the defendant was on bail from the Appeals Court, they may usually remain on bail until the Supreme Court judgment. When the Supreme Court delivers its judgment, that decision is final – there is no further appeal. The case is then conclusively resolved. If the Supreme Court overturns a conviction, the defendant is acquitted with finality (and released if in custody). If it upholds or imposes a conviction, the sentence becomes executable (subject to any remaining royal pardon opportunities).
In summary, the appellate system in Thailand provides two levels of review, with the first appeal as of right (in most cases) and the second appeal by leave. Every step has strict deadlines (30 days for filing appeals at each level) and procedural requirements. Recent legal reforms have modernized some aspects of appeals: for example, courts are increasingly allowing electronic filing of appeals and digital record submissions, and there is ongoing development of e-litigation systems to streamline appeals. Additionally, the emphasis on timeliness is growing, with new regulations aiming to avoid undue delay in appellate decisions. For appellants, it is crucial to raise all important issues in the appeal brief and adhere to the formalities, since the higher courts will rely heavily on the written record. For foreign defendants, appeals can be a chance to overturn or reduce a conviction – Thailand has, in past cases, seen foreigners acquitted on appeal or had sentences reduced. However, if a foreign defendant loses the final appeal, the earlier note on deportation will come into play after the case is final. In any event, the appeals process is a critical phase of criminal litigation in Thailand, offering a path to correct errors and pursue justice beyond the first trial.