Thailand's Criminal Court is using Section 161/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code to filter out criminal complaints filed in bad faith, including strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP cases.

The provision allows judges to dismiss a complaint at the initial review stage where it appears intended to intimidate a defendant or place an unfair burden on them, rather than proceed to trial.

Jiraphat Phanthawi, chief judge of the Criminal Court, described the measure as an important tool against SLAPP litigation during a seminar on legal knowledge and judicial procedures for media representatives.

Such cases can arise from ordinary disputes, politically related matters and defamation complaints involving journalists, he said.

Early review of complaints

The court examines whether a complaint was lodged dishonestly. Where this is clear from the filing, judges may throw out the case during the initial review.

If the purpose behind a complaint is not immediately evident, the court can make further inquiries or order a court case officer to collect additional facts. Judges may also take account of whether the conduct at the heart of a complaint, including journalistic reporting, was in the public interest.

Jiraphat said legal action was sometimes brought against reporters covering grey-business interests or criminal networks. Even where journalists can ultimately defend their work, court proceedings demand time and require them to gather evidence.

He stressed that the court must remain impartial and cannot step in on either side's behalf.

Takedown petitions and specialist courts

People harmed by the publication of damaging images or other content can submit a petition directly to the Criminal Court under its "Take It Down" mechanism. About 50 to 60 petitions have been filed so far.

In technology-crime cases, the court also considers applications to block websites or URLs considered to affect national security. More than 600,000 URLs have been blocked through that process.

This is particularly relevant to publishing, sharing or operating online content in Thailand: online material can be subject to court takedown applications and website-blocking procedures, alongside any separate criminal complaint.

The Criminal Court handles major investigations involving agencies including the Department of Special Investigation, the Central Investigation Bureau and the Crime Suppression Division. Many cases involve complex evidence or organised criminal networks.

Its specialist divisions cover narcotics, human trafficking and technology crime. The court's Rights and Liberties Protection Centre provides legal information to suspects, defendants and victims to help them make informed decisions about exercising their rights.

The court also uses the centre and its spokesperson team to explain legal rights and judicial procedures to the public.

Picture courtesy of The Nation

Join the discussion?

23 August 2026

View full article

Thailand’s Criminal Court has finally recognised SLAPP suits for what they are: intimidation dressed up as law.

Criminal defamation and computer‑crime complaints have long been used here as pressure tactics. Many lawyers and complainants saw them as legitimate tools, so courts were cautious about labelling them “bad faith.”

Section 161/1 gives judges the power to bin such complaints at the outset, sparing defendants the grind of defending against bad‑faith filings.

It reflects a judicial recognition that litigation should not be a blunt instrument against free speech or public participation.

Meanwhile, in the US, Trump has turned the opposite tactic into an art form of weaponising endless filings and branding any unfavourable ruling as “fake news.”

The Thai approach shows how a judiciary can act as a filter against abuse; the US example shows what happens when the filter is missing.

5 hours ago, Jim Waldron said:

Thailand’s Criminal Court has finally recognised SLAPP suits for what they are: intimidation dressed up as law.

Criminal defamation and computer‑crime complaints have long been used here as pressure tactics. Many lawyers and complainants saw them as legitimate tools, so courts were cautious about labelling them “bad faith.”

Section 161/1 gives judges the power to bin such complaints at the outset, sparing defendants the grind of defending against bad‑faith filings.

It reflects a judicial recognition that litigation should not be a blunt instrument against free speech or public participation.

Meanwhile, in the US, Trump has turned the opposite tactic into an art form of weaponising endless filings and branding any unfavourable ruling as “fake news.”

The Thai approach shows how a judiciary can act as a filter against abuse; the US example shows what happens when the filter is missing.

turned the opposite tactic into an art form of weaponising endless filings

Since you brought the US up, the art form of weaponising endless fillings , started

by the democrats.

Never understood this SLAPP concept very well .... but my UK

ex wife did !