The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP).

Background

Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions.

Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation

Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories:

1. Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant;
2. Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and
3. False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts.

Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith

Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include:

• Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication;
• Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework;
• Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct;
• Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation;
• Filing multiple cases from the same facts without reasonable cause; and
• Penalizing a defendant who merely exercised lawful rights or duties, where the plaintiff had no reasonable cause to believe wrongdoing was committed.

Court Procedures

When there are reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of section 161/1, the court should order the plaintiff to submit an explanation and evidence, and may summon additional evidence or assign court officers to assist in the inquiry. Where the violation is manifestly clear, the court may dismiss the case at the complaint-screening stage. If the case is at the preliminary hearing stage, the court may conduct its bad-faith review concurrently and issue a single ruling.

Judicial Discretion and Safeguards

In exercising discretion, courts must consider the severity of the alleged conduct, public interest, and the credibility of the justice process. As a safeguard against misuse, if a defendant raises a section 161/1 objection as a delay tactic, the court should halt proceedings on the objection and continue the case without delay. For criminal proceedings beyond the scope of the recommendations, courts are directed to apply the principles of good-faith litigation and proportionality.

Key Takeaways

These recommendations represent the first comprehensive judicial guidance on bad-faith criminal litigation in Thailand. They expressly recognize SLAPP-type suits as abusive and enable early dismissal at the complaint-screening stage.

Plaintiffs should ensure their filings are well-grounded in fact and brought for legitimate purposes. Defendants targeted by SLAPP suits or other abusive complaints may now have stronger grounds to seek early dismissal under section 161/1.