Major Differences Between Thai Legal System and Western Law

[reader]

From Pattaya Times

Today on behalf of our friends at Issan Lawyers we take a look at five major differences between the Thai legal system and most Western legal systems. These are significant in many cases especially for expat readers who may not be aware.

1. **Legal Tradition**:
– **Thailand**: The Thai legal system is primarily based on civil law, which means it relies heavily on written statutes and codes.

– **Western Countries**: Most Western legal systems, such as those in the United States, the United Kingdom, and many European countries, follow the common law tradition. Common law relies on judicial decisions (case law) as well as statutes.

2. **Jury System**:

– **Thailand**: Unlike Western countries, Thailand does not have a jury system. Legal disputes are decided by judges or panels of judges.

– **Western Countries**: In Western legal systems, juries play a crucial role in both criminal and civil cases. Jurors evaluate evidence, listen to witnesses, and deliver verdicts.

3. **Defamation Laws**:

– **Thailand**: Defamation is treated as a **criminal offense** in Thailand. Depending on the severity, it can lead to imprisonment, fines, or both.
– **Western Countries**: In the West, defamation is typically a civil matter, where individuals can sue for damages. Criminal charges for defamation are rare and truth is often a valid defence against defamation.

Defamation in Thailand does not always necessarily rely on if something is true or not, but if it was released in front of an unrelated third party (Yes, this includes posting online) in an attempt to “name and shame” or bringing “hate” to a person or business. This is a significant difference from the west and has got many westerners unaware of the difference in trouble.
 

4. **Influence of Supreme Court Decisions**:

– **Thailand**: The Thai legal system considers Supreme Court decisions as persuasive authority in lower court cases. These decisions guide judges but are not legally binding.
– **Western Countries**: Western common law systems place significant importance on precedent set by higher courts. Lower courts are generally bound by decisions of higher courts.

5. **Sources of Law**:

– **Thailand**: Sources of Thai law include the Constitution, codified laws, administrative regulations, international treaties, and judicial decisions.
– **Western Countries**: Western legal systems rely on statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions. Precedent from higher courts significantly shapes legal interpretation.

Consider reaching out to Issan Lawyers, contact information below, for assistance with any problems you may have had or questions regarding legal matters, including criminal case related problems or other legal problems.

[Keithambrose]

4 hours ago, reader said:

From Pattaya Times

 

Today on behalf of our friends at Issan Lawyers we take a look at five major differences between the Thai legal system and most Western legal systems. These are significant in many cases especially for expat readers who may not be aware.

1. **Legal Tradition**:
– **Thailand**: The Thai legal system is primarily based on civil law, which means it relies heavily on written statutes and codes.

– **Western Countries**: Most Western legal systems, such as those in the United States, the United Kingdom, and many European countries, follow the common law tradition. Common law relies on judicial decisions (case law) as well as statutes.

 

2. **Jury System**:

– **Thailand**: Unlike Western countries, Thailand does not have a jury system. Legal disputes are decided by judges or panels of judges.

 

– **Western Countries**: In Western legal systems, juries play a crucial role in both criminal and civil cases. Jurors evaluate evidence, listen to witnesses, and deliver verdicts.

3. **Defamation Laws**:

– **Thailand**: Defamation is treated as a **criminal offense** in Thailand. Depending on the severity, it can lead to imprisonment, fines, or both.
– **Western Countries**: In the West, defamation is typically a civil matter, where individuals can sue for damages. Criminal charges for defamation are rare and truth is often a valid defence against defamation.

Defamation in Thailand does not always necessarily rely on if something is true or not, but if it was released in front of an unrelated third party (Yes, this includes posting online) in an attempt to “name and shame” or bringing “hate” to a person or business. This is a significant difference from the west and has got many westerners unaware of the difference in trouble.
 

 

4. **Influence of Supreme Court Decisions**:

– **Thailand**: The Thai legal system considers Supreme Court decisions as persuasive authority in lower court cases. These decisions guide judges but are not legally binding.
– **Western Countries**: Western common law systems place significant importance on precedent set by higher courts. Lower courts are generally bound by decisions of higher courts.

5. **Sources of Law**:

– **Thailand**: Sources of Thai law include the Constitution, codified laws, administrative regulations, international treaties, and judicial decisions.
– **Western Countries**: Western legal systems rely on statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions. Precedent from higher courts significantly shapes legal interpretation.

Consider reaching out to Issan Lawyers, contact information below, for assistance with any problems you may have had or questions regarding legal matters, including criminal case related problems or other legal problems.

 

I should point out that most Northern European countries, basically those conquered by Napoleon,  are civil law countries guided by a Code, indeed originally the Code Napoleon,  not precedent. England, and Scotland are unusual in that respect.

[Moses]

5 hours ago, reader said:

– **Western Countries**: Most Western legal systems, such as those in the United States, the United Kingdom, and many European countries, follow the common law tradition. Common law relies on judicial decisions (case law) as well as statutes.

Wrong. ALL (!!!) EU countries use the same civil law system as in Thailand. Exclusions:  UK, Ireland, Cyprus use common law. Andorra, Guernsey and Jersey islands have customary law systems.

5 hours ago, reader said:

– **Western Countries**: In Western legal systems, juries play a crucial role in both criminal and civil cases. Jurors evaluate evidence, listen to witnesses, and deliver verdicts.

Wrong. Most of European countries have NO juries, and use panel of judges. NO ONE European country besides UK, Ireland and Cyprus use juries in civil cases, some use in criminal cases.

 

5 hours ago, reader said:

– **Western Countries**: In the West, defamation is typically a civil matter, where individuals can sue for damages. Criminal charges for defamation are rare and truth is often a valid defence against defamation.

Wrong. In most European countries defamation is a crime: Germany, Spain, France and so on... A report by the Vienna-based International Press Institute (IPI), published in January 2015, found that just over half of EU Member States have convicted journalists of criminal defamation in the last five years.

 

5 hours ago, reader said:

– **Western Countries**: Western common law systems place significant importance on precedent set by higher courts. Lower courts are generally bound by decisions of higher courts.

Well, as we already know, "western common law systems" exists only in UK, Ireland and Cyprus in Europe. But in most civil law systems lower courts are bound by decisions of higher courts as well.

 

5 hours ago, reader said:

– **Western Countries**: Western legal systems rely on statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions. Precedent from higher courts significantly shapes legal interpretation.

Wrong. Only in UK, Ireland and Cyprus law systems rely on case law. Rest of Europe don't rely on precedents.

[Keithambrose]

21 minutes ago, Moses said:

Wrong. ALL (!!!) EU countries use the same civil law system as in Thailand. Exclusions:  UK, Ireland, Cyprus use common law. Andorra, Guernsey and Jersey islands have customary law systems.

Wrong. Most of European countries have NO juries, and use panel of judges. NO ONE European country besides UK, Ireland and Cyprus use juries in civil cases, some use in criminal cases.

 

Wrong. In most European countries defamation is a crime: Germany, Spain, France and so on... A report by the Vienna-based International Press Institute (IPI), published in January 2015, found that just over half of EU Member States have convicted journalists of criminal defamation in the last five years.

 

Well, as we already know, "western common law systems" exists only in UK, Ireland and Cyprus in Europe. But in most civil law systems lower courts are bound by decisions of higher courts as well.

 

Wrong. Only in UK, Ireland and Cyprus law systems rely on case law. Rest of Europe don't rely on precedents.

In France the highest court, The Cour de Caasation is NOT bound by its own previous decisions,  as I know to my cost. We have a law office in Paris!

[Moses]

8 minutes ago, Keithambrose said:

In France the highest court, The Cour de Caasation is NOT bound by its own previous decisions,  as I know to my cost. We have a law office in Paris!

I know, courts are bound by own decisions only in countries with common law system.

P.S. edited because initial reply was written after wrong reading.

 

[Keithambrose]

1 hour ago, Moses said:

I know, courts are bound by own decisions only in countries with common law system.

P.S. edited because initial reply was written after wrong reading.

 

Life is also complicated because some European  countries have a set of different  Supreme Courts, depending on the issues. ie a Constitutional  Supreme Court, a Labour law Supreme Court, tax, etc. France has the Conseil d'Etat, for example.  The UK has just one Supreme  Court, that hears all cases.

[reader]

A tip of the cap to two professionals who took the time to describe the nuances and history of how the concept of law actually evolved in different nations. I trust that Issan Lawyers will take it all in stride. 🙂

[Keithambrose]

8 hours ago, Moses said:

Wrong. ALL (!!!) EU countries use the same civil law system as in Thailand. Exclusions:  UK, Ireland, Cyprus use common law. Andorra, Guernsey and Jersey islands have customary law systems.

Wrong. Most of European countries have NO juries, and use panel of judges. NO ONE European country besides UK, Ireland and Cyprus use juries in civil cases, some use in criminal cases.

 

Wrong. In most European countries defamation is a crime: Germany, Spain, France and so on... A report by the Vienna-based International Press Institute (IPI), published in January 2015, found that just over half of EU Member States have convicted journalists of criminal defamation in the last five years.

 

Well, as we already know, "western common law systems" exists only in UK, Ireland and Cyprus in Europe. But in most civil law systems lower courts are bound by decisions of higher courts as well.

 

Wrong. Only in UK, Ireland and Cyprus law systems rely on case law. Rest of Europe don't rely on precedents.

Add Gibraltar!

[unicorn]

9 hours ago, Moses said:

...
 

Wrong. Most of European countries have NO juries, and use panel of judges. NO ONE European country besides UK, Ireland and Cyprus use juries in civil cases, some use in criminal cases.

 

Wrong. In most European countries defamation is a crime: Germany, Spain, France and so on... A report by the Vienna-based International Press Institute (IPI), published in January 2015, found that just over half of EU Member States have convicted journalists of criminal defamation in the last five years.

...

Thank you for correcting a (highly) factually incorrect posting. Civil juries are almost unique to the US. They are extremely rare in the UK:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial

"...In England and Wales (which have the same legal system), everyone accused of an offence which carries more than six months' imprisonment has a right to trial by jury. Minor ("summary") criminal cases are heard without a jury in the Magistrates' Courts. Middle-ranking ("triable either way") offences may be tried by magistrates or the defendant may elect trial by jury in the Crown Court. Serious ("indictable-only") offences, however, must be tried before a jury in the Crown Court. Juries sit in few civil cases, being restricted to false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and civil fraud (unless ordered otherwise by a judge)...". 

Jury trials are also extremely rare for civil cases in Ireland:

"...In the Republic of Ireland, a common law jurisdiction, jury trials are available for criminal cases before the Circuit Court, Central Criminal Court and defamation cases, consisting of twelve jurors...". 

I think both of you are incorrect regarding jury trials in Cyprus. There are no jury trials, even for criminal cases, in Cyprus:

 https://e-justice.europa.eu/18/EN/national_ordinary_courts?CYPRUS&member=1

"...The District Courts hear at first instance all civil cases (except for admiralty cases) and criminal cases for offences punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to 5 years. Each administrative district in Cyprus has a District Court. Case are tried by one judge and there is no jurys are heard ...  The Assize Courts hear criminal cases only. As a rule they try the most serious cases involving offences that are punishable by a term of imprisonment of over 5 years. Each Assize Court consists of three judges. Decisions are taken by majority vote. There is no jury...".

As you correctly pointed out, defamation is a criminal offense in many places, including many US states. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

"...on the state level, 23 states and two territories have criminal defamation laws on the books: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. In addition, Iowa criminalizes defamation through case law without statutorily defining it as a crime...".

I don't know about Thai law, but it certainly may be the case that Thailand is unique in allowing truthful statements to be considered defamatory. In all civilized countries, a truthful statement cannot be defamatory. I believe it's absolutely shameful, for sure, if one can be jailed in Thailand for posting something truthful. 

The OP didn't make reference to any reliable source, so I leave it up in the air as to whether I believe the statement that truthful statements can be considered defamatory in Thailand. I'll wait for a more reliable source (given all of the factually incorrect statements from the Pataya TImes source, that source is obviously unreliable). 

[unicorn]

9 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

In France the highest court, The Cour de Caasation is NOT bound by its own previous decisions,  as I know to my cost. We have a law office in Paris!

Well, I doubt there's anywhere a changeable, highest court is bound by its own previous decisions. In the US, the SCOTUS has reversed many of its previous decisions, including its recent reversal of Roe v. Wade. However, I'd be surprised to learn that there's anywhere in which lower courts don't have to abide by higher court decisions. Otherwise, the litigant could just simply appeal to the higher court and reverse the lower court's ruling. 

[Keithambrose]

4 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

Add Gibraltar!

And Isle of Man!