You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

November 25, 2016

Changes to Thailand’s Appeal System Affect Absentee Convicted Criminals

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Recent amendments to Thailand’s criminal law make it harder for convicted criminals who do not appear for sentencing to appeal their cases. Under the current law, defendants who are on the run are able to file higher court appeals through a lawyer. The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) has now closed this loophole, and the amendments are awaiting final signature to become effective. 

Under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), a defendant is required to appear before the court to hear judgment. If the defendant fails to be present in court through no fault of his or her own (e.g., they, in good faith, were unaware of the court date), issuance of the judgment is suspended until the defendant actually appears.

However, if the court has any suspicion that the defendant purposely avoided the judgment hearing, an arrest warrant will be issued. If the defendant is not arrested within one month from when the warrant was issued, the court can issue the judgment without the defendant being present.

Importantly, if the court convicts the non-appearing defendant, that defendant still has the right to appeal the judgment to the Appellate Court or the Supreme Court. In other words, even a fugitive has the legal right to appeal his or her conviction, under the current process.

Substantive efforts to change this law began in March 2016. NLA members submitted a proposal to the President of the NLA to amend the CPC. They argued that allowing absconding defendants to appeal was against public policy and principles of fair justice. The proposed amendments stated that if a defendant wanted to appeal a Criminal Court judgment, the defendant should be required to physically appear before court officials.

NLA members also commented that under the amendment, absent defendants would lose their right to appeal to higher courts and should be barred from designating lawyers to act on their behalf before appellate courts. In addition, NLA members proposed that absent defendants should lose the right to file separate legal claims against plaintiffs or authorities.

In September 2016, the NLA approved a revised version of the proposed amendment. An extraordinary committee appointed by the NLA recommended that the amendment should only apply to absent defendants whose judgment relates to imprisonment or any other higher punishment. As such, defendants sentenced to lesser punishments, such as fines and suspended prison sentences, are exempt from the appeal restriction.

Accordingly, a defendant in these circumstances is entitled to apply for a time extension to appear before court officials, which would give him or her a fair chance to file an appeal with the courts. The NLA also ultimately rejected the proposal to restrict absent defendants from filing separate legal claims.

In addition, the extraordinary committee recognized the importance of Thailand’s obligations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), an international treaty. The ICCPR provides that anyone convicted of a crime has the right to appeal and have the sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal. The extraordinary committee considered the ICCPR and concluded that the amendment is in accordance with Thailand’s international legal obligations.

The extraordinary committee reasoned that if the convicted person cannot physically appear before the court based on reasonable grounds, he or she would still be able to  extend the deadline to file the appeal according to the law. In other words, if the convicted person legitimately cannot appear before the court (i.e., he or she does not run away to become a fugitive), their right to appeal will not be prejudiced.

This amendment will have implications for convicted defendants who decide to fight their case while in hiding or from abroad. Of course, this includes business people who may find themselves facing court proceedings for white-collar crimes. Such defendants must now reconsider absconding before judgment is passed.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More
January 8, 2026
Doing business in Thailand means operating under a strict regulatory framework. From time to time, companies may receive unexpected administrative orders from government authorities that restrict their operations, impose new compliance obligations, or levy fines and penalties. When this happens, a business may challenge the order under Thailand’s administrative law system. The primary concern in pursuing administrative litigation is timing, as strict statutory deadlines apply and missing them can permanently affect a company’s rights. First Step: Administrative Appeal Many companies assume the first step is to immediately bring the matter before the Administrative Court to seek revocation or suspension of the order. Some even attempt to request an interim injunction to stop the order from taking effect. However, Thai law generally requires that the company first challenge the order through an administrative appeal with the same agency that issued it. Only after this process is complete can the matter be taken to court. Seeking an interim injunction at this stage is also not possible. This is because Thai law does not allow a standalone application for an interim injunction; an injunction can only be requested together with the underlying complaint filed with the Administrative Court. Since a court complaint cannot be filed until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, an injunction is usually not available at the early stage. What Are the Timeframes for Administrative Appeal? Thailand applies a two-stage administrative appeal process. The appeal must first be submitted to the same authority that issued the order, which will review its own decision. If that authority affirms its decision, the appeal is then escalated to the relevant higher authority for further review. In most cases, both stages must be completed before a company is allowed to proceed to court. The timeframe for filing an administrative appeal is very
Read More
December 19, 2025
Prior to the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Thailand’s cabinet approved a draft amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act, following review by the Council of State. If enacted, this reform will fundamentally change how state agencies process business applications and appeals by imposing enforceable timelines and legal consequences for inaction. The draft directly targets a longstanding commercial frustration: applications and appeals that vanish into administrative silence, stalling investment and foreclosing judicial review across sectors ranging from real estate and manufacturing to healthcare and finance. The “Silence Means Yes” Rule for Applications At the core of the reform is a new automatic “approval by implication” for applications subject to statutory processing deadlines. If an official fails to notify an applicant of a decision within the legally prescribed period, the application will be deemed approved as a matter of law. This presumption shifts the costs of delay from businesses to the bureaucracy and gives applicants a definitive legal position once time expires. The mechanism applies to routine licensing and registration matters governed by explicit consideration periods in existing statutes or ministerial regulations. Officials may extend the decision period by up to thirty days, but only if they notify the applicant before the original deadline and substantiate that the delay arises from genuinely exceptional circumstances beyond their control. Certain sensitive applications are expressly excluded from automatic approval, including those that may significantly affect national security or defense, public safety and health, the environment or natural resources, or national cultural heritage. Once the deadline passes without a decision, businesses can proceed with deployment of capital and operations—construction, hiring, procurement, and market entry—without waiting for formal permission that may never arrive. For time-sensitive projects, this materially reduces regulatory timing risk. The “Deemed Rejection” Rule for Appeals The draft introduces a parallel “deemed rejection”
Read More
December 12, 2025
Similar to other types of corporate disputes, tax-related conflicts often begin with an earnest attempt to resolve matters outside the courtroom. The prospect of engaging in tax litigation can be daunting, given the potential strain on commercial relationships, the legal expenses, and the uncertainty surrounding its resolution. However, there are instances when tax litigation becomes the sole avenue for seeking redress. For individuals and entities contemplating the pursuit of tax-related legal remedies, the Thai legal system offers an accessible, impartial, and equitable platform for dispute resolution. Tilleke & Gibbins’ latest update to Tax Litigation in Thailand provides an outline for navigating tax-related disputes within the Thai legal framework. It aims to equip readers with a fundamental understanding of procedures and practices within the Thai tax litigation landscape. The full guide is available through the button below.
Read More