User:Clumsily/Supreme Court of Justice of Thailand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Supreme Court of Justice of Thailand
Coat of Arms of Siam (1873-1910).svg
Established 1874
Country Thailand
Location 6, Thanon Ratchadamnoen Nai, Khwaeng Phra Borom Maharatchawang, Khet Phra Nakhon, Bangkok
Coordinates 13°45′26″N 100°29′25″E / 13.757167°N 100.490139°E / 13.757167; 100.490139Coordinates: 13°45′26″N 100°29′25″E / 13.757167°N 100.490139°E / 13.757167; 100.490139
Composition method (See below)
Authorized by (See below)
Website Supremecourt.or.th
President of the Supreme Court of Justice of Thailand
Currently Sopchok Sukharom
Since October 1, 2009

The Supreme Court of Justice of Thailand (Thai: ศาลฎีกา; RTGSSan Dika; Thai pronunciation: [sǎːn•dīːkāː]) is Thailand's court of justice of last resort with the territorial jurisdiction throughout the country and the subject-matter jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the appeals against the judgments or orders of the inferior courts of justice as well as the cases directly subject to its comptency.[1]

The Presidency of the Supreme Court of Justice consists of one President and not more than six Vice-Presidents, all are appointed by the King of Thailand.

The Seat of the Supreme Court of Justice is located in front of Sanam Luang. In recent political history of the country, it was one of the bombing targets. On February 14, 2010, when the Supreme Court of Justice was scheduled to pronounce its judgment in Thaksin Shinawatra's property confiscation case, three-pound C-4 was found laid close by its Seat but the disposal was promptly operated, leaving no one and nothing injuried.[2]

History[edit]

Judicial crisis in Siam[edit]

The Chulalongkorn's Equestrian Statue in the Dusit Palace Plaza, Bangkok

In former times in Siam (present Thailand), every government ministry had its own courts to exercise jurisdiction over the disputes as to its responsible service, the officers in the executive branch were authorised to exercise judicial power also for the reason that there was no separation of powers, while the absolute monarchs of Siam enjoyed the prerogative to him or herself adjudicate the appeals lodged by the people against the judgments of those courts. As the disputes increased time by time, the traditional judicial system of the country became in disorder, but it was left unimproved since its establishment in the Ayutthaya period until the initial Rattanakosin period, aging more than three hundred consecutive years.[3]

When the reform-minded crown prince Chulalongkorn was enthroned as the fifth monarch of the House of Chakri which ruled Siam at that time, the new king was of an opinion that the traditional judicial system has retarded the national development and was needed to be reformed without delay, for the reason that:[3]

  • The traditional judicial system was unsuitable to the modern ideology. It have gained public negative criticism for so much long time, but it was left unadjusted for so long also.
  • Many courts were confronting with the conflict of jurisdiction as, even subsidiary to different government ministries, they were authorised to try and adjudicate similar subject-matters, leaving a great amount of disputes overdue and complex.
  • The complexity in the judicial system have allowed some powerful executive authorities to intervene in exercising the judicial power. The arrests have been conducted unfairly and the trials have been carried out comatosely. The efficaciousness of the judges were reduced gradually as their independence have been interloped chronically.
  • The court procedure in force at the time being was pursuant to the principle of "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". The criminal cases have been resulted in immoderate infliction of punishment. The defendants have been the objects of trial, not the subjects of the rights to prove their innocence.
  • Not only having been inferered, the judicial officers also enjoyed corruptions rampantly. In his remark, Chulalongkorn once stated: "...When the cases are brought before them, the judges will merely look into whatever presented in the documents, they did not looked into the cases by their eyes. This allows the inquiring officers and the parties to employ fraudulent trickery arbitrarily..."[4] This dishonesty was also insisted by Phraya Chakkrapani Si Sin Wisut (La-o Krairoek), who later became the fourth President of the modern Supreme Court of Justice. He remarked:[5]

"...When a public officer holding the office of the Director-General of a department consider that his salary could not cover his household expenses or not serve the desire of his wives and children, he will complain to his superior. If the superior deems that his subordinate is needy for real, the superior will entrust him to try and adjudicate one or two civil or criminal cases at his own residence. The trial at the officer's residence would nicely be favourable to the offcer, because it requires the parties to the case to stay at the officer's residence for a long period which sometimes take months or years until the trial is over. During which, the plaintiff, prosecutor, defendant or witness will try to please the officer responsible for his or her case in every way...Then, the officer would somehow have his inadequacy alleviated..."

Judicial system reform[edit]

Composition[edit]

The Presidency[edit]

The Presidency of the Supreme Court of Justice (Thai: คณะประธานศาลฎีกา; RTGSKhana Prathan San Dika) consists of:[6]

  • One President of the Supreme Court of Justice (Thai: ประธานศาลฎีกา; RTGSPrathan San Dika) selected by the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of Justice and nominated to the King to be appointed.
  • Not more than six Vice-Presidents of the Supreme Court of Justice (Thai: รองประธานศาลฎีกา; RTGSRong Prathan San Dika)

The Plenary Session[edit]

Administrative boards[edit]

Courts of Justice Administrative Board[edit]

Courts of Justice's Judicial Officers Board[edit]

Judges[edit]

All judges of the Supreme Court of Justice (Thai: ผู้พิพากษาศาลฎีกา; RTGSPhu Phiphaksa San Dika) are appointed by the King from the judges of the courts of justice of second instance or from those transferred from the administrative courts, by and with the advice and consent of the CJJC.[7]

Secretariat[edit]

Special devisions[edit]

Presently, the Supreme Court of Justice have eleven special divisions (Thai: แผนก; RTGSPhanaek) for the purpose of dealing with the cases requiring specialised profiency. Ten of them are established by the laws, and the other, by the Supreme Court of Justice itself. The eleven are:

No. Name Thai Name (RTGS) Establishment law
1. Juvenile and Family Division แผนกคดีเยาวชนและครอบครัว
(Phanaek Khadi Yaowachon Lae Khrop Khrua)
Act on Establishment of Juvenile and Family Courts and Juvenile and Family Case Procedure, BE 2534 (1991)[8]
2. Labour Division แผนกคดีแรงงาน
(Phanaek Khadi Raeng Ngan)
Act on Establishment of Labour Courts and Labour Case Procedure, BE 2522 (1979)[9]
3. Tax Division แผนกคดีภาษีอากร
(Phanaek Khadi Phasi A-kon)
Act on Establishment of Tax Courts and Tax Case Procedure, BE 2528 (1985)[10]
4. Intellectual Property and International Trade Division แผนกคดีทรัพย์สินทางปัญญาและการค้าระหว่างประเทศ
(Phanaek Khadi Sap Sin Thang Panya Lae Kan Kha Rawang Prathet)
Act on Establishment of Intellectual Property and International Trade Courts and Intellectual Property and International Trade Case Procedure, BE 2539 (1996)[11]

Jurisdiction[edit]

Territorial jurisdiction[edit]

Subject-matter jurisdiction[edit]

Procedures[edit]

Seat[edit]

Location and construction[edit]

The Seat of the Supreme Court of Justice is located in front of Sanam Luang, amongst Tha Phrachan Campus of Thammasat University, the Tha Phra Palace which houses Silpakorn University, the Temple of the Emerald Buddha, the Grand Palace, the Bangkok National Museum and the Office of the Council of State of Thailand, along the Chao Phraya River.

The Seat comprises of three complexes arranged in V-position. All of them were designed by Phra Sarot Rattana Nimman (Sarot Sukyang), a government architect of the Fine Arts Department.[12]

Tthe first complex was constructed in 1939 to be the office of the Ministry of Justice. The construction was completed in the next two years and the opening ceremony was held on June 24, 1941, the date on which Khana Ratsadon staged the Siamese Revolution overthrowing the absolute monarchy and forming the constitutional monarchy under the parliamentary democracy in the ninth preceding year.[12]

The second complex was completely built in 1941 and was inaugurated on June 24, 1943.[12]

The third comple was not constructed according to the original design for the reason that the design was lost in the Second World War. The new design was drawn up in 1959 by the command of Field Marshal Plaek Pibulsongkram, the Prime Minister at that time and a member of Khana Ratsadon. As his Government just has successfully revoked all treaties, including the Bowring Treaty, the country adopted in the initial Rattanakosin period granting extraterritoriality to the westerners, Pibulsongkram insisted that the theme of the complex must be "Modern Architecture." In his report, Pibulsongkram said:[13]

"...Following the Revolution, our judicial affairs have been supported and promoted to this high standard time by time...In My Government's era, the nation will be improved, bettered and nurtured more and more. For the reason that Thailand has just obtained the complete judicial independence, I, Prime Minister, deems that it is appropriate to establish the offices of the Ministry of Justice and of the Supreme Court of Justice to be the national honour and prestige and be the pillar of justice."

The construction was completed and the opening ceremony was organised in 1963.[14]

President of the National Assembly Chao Phraya Si Thammathibet (Chit Na Songkhla) who presided over the ceremony addressed that:[15]

"...Now, Siam has gained her judicial independence completely. It is expedient to have the Seat of the Court of Justice which is stately as in all other civilised nations. This Seat would from the remembrance of the return of our judicial independence..."

Although the "Modern Architecture" Seat was deemed and intended by Khana Ratsadon to be a symbol of the democracy it has introduced to the country, the royalists viewed it is "repulsive.[14]

Seat demolition project[edit]

Proposal to demolish and rebuild the Seat[edit]

The proposal to have the Seat knocked down was began since 1986. In 1992, the administrative board of the Supreme Court of Justice made a proposal of destroying the Seat and rebuilding it under the theme of "Modern Thai Style." The proposed design was the building complexes with the roofs as the Grand Palace. This was endorsed by the Government and the budget of approximately 2,300 million baht was then approved. Although, the project was forced to be suspended by the economic crisis.

In 2006, the project has been revivified. The design was slightly improved to be the complexes in complete traditional palace style, called "Temple and Palace Style". The new Seat would be two-time huger than the current one. The Supreme Court of Justice said this would signify "Thainess." The budget of 3,700 million baht binding Budgeting Years 2007-2013 was endorsed by the Council for Democratic Reform, a military junta which took control of the country at that time. The religious ceremony commencing the project was held on September 23, 2007.

Public protests[edit]

The revival of the project raised much concerns amongst the public and underwent heavy protests by non-governmental organisations and public sectors to the extent that the demonstrations have taken place, several academic forums and discussions have been held and the lawsuits have been entered to haul the project.

The Fine Arts and Environment Conservation Society of Thailand said: "...The Seat of the Supreme Court of Justice is one of the ancient complexes existing in this day and worth besing preserved. The Fine Arts Department are now preparing to register it as a national historic site...but the Supreme Court of Justice has refused to collaborate..." [16]

In a public forum called the "24th ICOMOS Thailand Get-Together on the Historical Value of the Supreme Court" on April 18, 2009, at Damrongrajanupap Conference Hall, Bangkok National Museum, the International Council on Monuments and Sites of Thailand (ICOMOS Thailand), said:[17]

"...[The ICOMOS Thailand] would like to respectfully ask Your Excellency to hold off the demolition of the Supreme Court building to allow more time to gather public opinions...[and] to study possible alternative solutions to properly improve and rehabilitate this historic judicial building of the Rattanakosin Era...in order to make possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving the building’s historical, architectural, and cultural values."

At the same time, the Thai NGO launched a campaign against the project. It was quoted as remarking:[18]

"...The symbol of justice does not express itself in a form of judgment only, but also in arts which echo the firmness and principles of justice...The history of the courts of justice vest in the nation, the people and the community. Please do not destruct the Seat of the Supreme Court of Justice without asking the people..."

Suspension[edit]

On July 1, 2010, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva called for the suspension of the project until there is a conclusion from the public. While the Fine Arts Department Director-General Grienggrai Sampatchalit insisted that "...The Department is closely keeping an eye on the Court's operation, because any act performed as to a historic site would constitue an offence under the Historic Site Act..."[19]

Seal[edit]

Another version of the Coat of Arms of Thailand

The Seal of the Supreme Court of Justice of Thailand is the Coat of Arms of Thailand[20] pursuant to Clause 2 of the Act Adopting the National Emblem, BE 2432 (1889), which prescribed:[21]

"All departments and ministries wishing to be represented by the National Emblem in performing their public service or for the purpose of signifying their agencies as in the miliatary or civil service shall draw up a design of the National Emble wished for and submit it to the Ministry of Palace Affairs for royal assent...Upon the royal assent, they shall be empowered to adopt such National Emblem as their emblem."

The Supreme Court of Justice has been granted such royal assent by Ananda Mahidol, according to the "Royal Proclamation Re: Assenting the Supreme Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal to Adopt the National Emblem as their Seals, dated August 2, 1937," stating:[20]

"...The royal assent is granted to the Ministry of Justice to adopt the national emblem as the vermilion seal of the Supreme Court of Justice...fixed in a 52-milimetre-diameter sphere with the words 'Supreme Court of Justice' on the ribbon below..."

The Seal is also adopted by all courts of justice of Thailand, and is affixed onto every judicial judgment, order or document of them.

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ^ Supreme Court of Justice's competency, 2006 : Online. (1).
  2. ^ Kom Chad Luek, 2010 : Online.
  3. ^ a b Judicial crisis in King Chulalongkorn's reign prior to its reform, 2006 : Online.
  4. ^ Judicial crisis in King Chulalongkorn's reign prior to its reform, 2006 : Online.

    "...ผู้พิพากษาจะบังคับความชี้ขาดตัดสิน ก็อาศัยแต่ในถ้อยคำสำนวนที่ในกระดาษสมุด ไม่ได้เห็นด้วยจักษุในการในการพิจารณาเลย จึงเป็นช่องอุบายทางทุจริตของตระลาการแลคู่ความ..."

  5. ^ Judicial crisis in King Chulalongkorn's reign prior to its reform, 2006 : Online.

    "...ถ้าข้าราชการขนาดชั้นเจ้ากรมรู้สึกว่า รายได้ของตนไม่ค่อยจะพอเลี้ยงบุตรภรรยา ก็มักจะร้องเรียนให้ผู้บังคับบัญชาหรือเจ้ากระทรวงทราบ ถ้าผู้บังคับบัญชาเห็นว่าผู้ร้องยากจนสมควรช่วยเหลือจริง ก็จะมอบความแพ่งหรืออาญามาให้ข้าราชการผู้นั้นชำระที่บ้าน การชำระความที่บ้านนั้นเป็นประโยชน์แก่ผู้ทำหน้าที่ตุลาการเป็นอย่างดี เพราะคู่ความ ทั้งโจทก์ จำเลย ตลอดจนพยาน จะต้องมาค้างที่บ้านตุลาการเป็นเวลานาน แรมเดือนหรือแรมปี จนกว่าตุลาการจะพิจารณาคดีเสร็จ ในระหว่างนี้ โจทก์ จำเลย และพยาน ก็ต้องหาข้าวปลาอาหารตลอดจนของใช้มา...ส่งเสียตุลาการ...ทำให้ตุลาการคลายความฝืดเคืองลงได้..."

  6. ^ The Law on Organisation of the Courts of Justice, as promulgated by the Act Promulgating the Law on Organisation of the Courts of Justice, BE 2543 (2000). Section 8, paragraph 1:

    There shall be one President of the Supreme Court of Justice, one President of the Court of Appeal, one President of a Regional Court of Appeal, one Chief-Judge of the Civil Court, one Chief-Judge of the Krung Thep Tai Civil Court, one Chief-Judge of the Thon Buri Civil Court, one Chief-Judge of the Criminal Court, one Chief-Judge of the Krung Thep Tai Criminal Court, one Chief-Judge of the Thon Buri Criminal Court and one Chief-Judge of another court prescribed by the law on its establishment to be a trial court. There shall also be one Vice-President of the Supreme Court of Justice, one Vice-President of the Court of Appeal, one Vice-President of a Regional Court of Appeal, one Deputy Chief-Judge of the Civil Court, one Deputy Chief-Judge of the Krung Thep Tai Civil Court, one Deputy Chief-Judge of the Thon Buri Civil Court, one Deputy Chief-Judge of the Criminal Court, one Deputy Chief-Judge of the Krung Thep Tai Criminal Court, one Deputy Chief-Judge of the Thon Buri Criminal Court and one Deputy Chief-Judge of another court prescribed by the law on its establishment to be a trial court. However, on basis of necessary in the interest of public service, the Courts of Justice Administrative Board, with approval of the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, may designate to have more than one but not exceeding six Vice-Presidents of the Supreme Court of Justice, and more than one but not more than three Vice-Presidents of the Court of Appeal or Regional Court of Appeal or Deputy Chief-Judges of a trial court."

  7. ^ The Act on Administrative Procedure of Courts of Justice Judicial Officers, BE 2543 (2000). Section 11, paragraph 1:

    "The offices of the judicial officers are as follows: The President of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Vice-Presidents of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Chief-Judges of the Supreme Court of Justice's Panels, the Judges of the Supreme Court of Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal, the Presidents of the Regional Courts of Appeal, the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal, the Vice-Presidents of the Regional Courts of Appeal, the Chief-Judges of the Court of Appeal's Panels, the Chief-Judges of the Regional Courts of Appeal's Panels, the Judges of the Court of Appeal, the Judges of the Regional Courts of Appeal, the Chief-Judges of the Trial Courts, the Chief-Judges of the Regions, the Deputy Chief-Judges of the Trial Courts, the Judges in Charge of the Courts, the Chief-Judges of the Trial Court's Panels, the Judges of the Trial Courts, the Judges attached to the Courts and the Apparitors"

  8. ^ The Act on Establishment of Juvenile and Family Courts and Juvenile and Family Case Procedure, BE 2534 (1991). Section 125:

    "For the purpose of trying and adjudicating the appeals from the courts of second instance or their Juvenile and Family division, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice shall, according to the necessity, establish in the Supreme Court of Justice one or more Juvenile and Family Divisions ."

  9. ^ The Act on Establishment of Labour Courts and Labour Case Procedure, BE 2522 (1979). Section 57, paragraph 1:

    "For the purpose of trying and adjudicating the appeals from the Labour Courts, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice shall establish in the Supreme Court of Justice a Labour Division."

  10. ^ The Act on Establishment of Tax Courts and Tax Case Procedure, BE 2528 (1985). Section 27:

    "For the purpose of trying and adjudicating the appeals from the Tax Courts, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice shall establish in the Supreme Court of Justice a Tax Division."

  11. ^ The Act on Establishment of Intellectual Property and International Trade Courts and Intellectual Property and International Trade Case Procedure, BE 2539 (1996). Section 43:

    "For the purpose of trying and adjudicating the appeals as to the intellectual property and International trade cases, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice shall establish in the Supreme Court of Justice an Intellectual Property and International Trade Division. In this respect, the Supreme Court of Justice shall deliver its judgments or orders expeditiously."

  12. ^ a b c TCDcconnect, 2008 : Online.
  13. ^ Prachathai, 2008, 23 May : Online.

    "ภายหลังจากการเปลี่ยนแปลงการปกครองเป็นต้นมา กิจการในด้านศาลยุติธรรมได้รับการประคับประคองและเชิดชูขึ้นสู่มาตรฐานอันสูงยิ่ง ๆ ขึ้น...ครั้นต่อมาในสมัยรัฐบาลปัจจุบันนี้ บ้านเมืองได้รับการปรับปรุงและทนุบำรุงให้ก้าวหน้ายิ่ง ๆ ขึ้น ประกอบด้วยประเทศไทยได้เอกราชทางศาลสมบูรณ์แล้ว ท่านนายพลตรีหลวงพิบูลสงคราม นายกรัฐมนตรี ได้ดำริเห็นสมควรที่จะให้มีที่ทำการกระทรวงและศาลใหม่ ให้เป็นที่เทอดเกียรติประเทศชาติ และสง่างาม สมภาคภูมิกับที่เป็นที่สถิตแห่งความยุติธรรม"

  14. ^ a b Prachathai, 2008, 23 May : Online.
  15. ^ Prachathai, 2008, 23 May : Online.

    "...บัดนี้ ประเทศสยามได้เอกราชในทางศาลคืนมาโดยสมบูรณ์แล้ว จึ่งเป็นการสมควรที่จะมีศาลยุติธรรมให้เป็นสง่าผ่าเผยเยี่ยงประเทศที่เจริญแล้วทั้งหลาย เพื่อเป็นอนุสรณ์แห่งการที่ได้อำนาจศาลคืนมา...

  16. ^

    "...สมาคมมองว่าไม่เหมาะสม เพราะอาคารดังกล่าวมีความเก่าแก่ และควรคุณค่าแก่การอนุรักษ์ และกรมศิลปากรเตรียมขึ้นทะเบียนเป็นโบราณสถาน และมีหนังสือขอเข้าไปตรวจสอบรังวัดพื้นที่อาคารหลายครั้ง แต่ปรากฏว่าขณะนี้ยังไม่ได้รับการตอบรับจากศาลฎีกาให้เข้าพื้นที่แต่อย่างใด..."

  17. ^

    "...จึงกราบเรียน ฯพณฯ ท่าน เพื่อขอให้ชะลอการรื้ออาคารศาลยุติธรรมและศาลฎีกา และจัดมีกระบวนการศึกษาและรับฟังข้อคิดเห็นจากองค์กร นักวิชาการ และกลุ่มผู้ที่สนใจศึกษาและเห็นคุณค่าอาคารนี้ เพื่อเป็นแนวทางเลือกต่อการพิจารณาต่อการปรับปรุงอาคารศาลยุติธรรมและศาลฎีกาให้มีคุณค่าทางประโยชน์ใช้สอย มีความมั่นคงแข็งแรง โดยยังคงรักษาคุณค่าทางประวัติศาสตร์ คุณค่าทางศิลปะสถาปัตยกรรมวัฒนธรรมและสังคมของอาคารศาลยุติธรรมและศาลฎีกาอันเป็นสถาบันสำคัญของชาติ และเป็นอาคารประวัติศาสตร์ในพื้นที่กรุงรัตนโกสินทร์ให้ดำรงรักษาคุณค่าความสำคัญอยู่ในพื้นที่นี้สืบไป"

  18. ^

    "...สัญลักษณ์ของความยุติธรรมมิได้มีเพียงแค่คำตัดสิน แต่ยังรวมสัญลักษณ์ทางศิลปะที่สะท้อนถึงความมั่นคงและหลักการแห่งความเที่ยงธรรม...ประวัติศาสตร์มิใช่เป็นของคนหนึ่งคนใด ประวัติศาสตร์ศาลสถิตยุติธรรมเป็นประวัติศาสตร์ของชาติ ประชาชน และชุมชน โปรดอย่าทุบทิ้งอาคารศาลโดยไม่ถามประชาชน..."

  19. ^

    "...ได้ติดตามการดำเนินงานของศาลฎีกาอย่างใกล้ชิด และหากมีการเข้าไปดำเนินการใด ๆ ขัดต่อพระราชบัญญัติโบราณสถาน พ.ศ. 2535 กรมจะเอาผิดทั้งแพ่งและอาญาทันที..."

  20. ^ a b Trivia as to the Seal of the Supreme Court of Justice, 2008 : Online.
  21. ^ The Act Adopting the National Emblem, BE 2432 (1889). Clause 2:

    "ให้บรรดากรมและกระทรวงต่าง ๆ ที่ประสงค์จะใช้ตราแผ่นดินในตำแหน่งราชการก็ดี หรือจะใช้เป็นเครื่องประดับยศเป็นที่หมายสำหรับบอกหมู่คณะในราชการ ดังเครื่องยศทหารหรือพลเรือนก็ดี ที่มีอยู่แล้ว หรือจะทำขึ้นใหม่ ก็ให้เขียนรูปลวดลายหรือตัวอย่างส่งมายังกรมวัง เพื่อจะได้รับพระบรมราชานุญาตให้ใช้...สืบไป...เมื่อได้รับอนุญาตคำสั่งเป็นสำคัญแล้ว จึงให้ใช้ตราแผ่นดินนั้นได้"

References[edit]

Legislative materials[edit]

  • Act on Administrative Procedure of Courts of Justice Judicial Officers, BE 2543 (2000). (2009, 29 May). [Online]. Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
  • Act on Establishment of Intellectual Property and International Trade Courts and Intellectual Property and International Trade Case Procedure, BE 2539 (1996). (2010, 29 March). Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
  • Act on Establishment of Labour Courts and Labour Case Procedure, BE 2522 (1979). (2010, 3 March). [Online]. Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
  • Act on Establishment of Juvenile and Family Courts and Juvenile and Family Case Procedure, BE 2534 (1991). (2009, 11 March). Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
  • Act on Establishment of Tax Courts and Tax Case Procedure, BE 2528 (1985).(2010, 5 May). Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
  • Act Promulgating the Law on Organisation of the Courts of Justice, BE 2543 (2000). (2010, 6 May). [Online]. Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).

News and articles[edit]

  • ICOMOS Thailand. (2009, April). "A Letter from ICOMOS Thailand to the Supreme Court of Justice". ICOMOS Thailand E-newsletter. [Online]. Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
  • Kom Chad Luek. (2010, 14 February). Unknown Hand Laying Three-Pond c-4 at the Supreme Court of Justice's Fence. [Online]. Available: <link>. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
  • OKNation. (2009, 23 November). Public Forum against Supreme Court Seat Demolition : Stopping Cultural Corruption! [Online]. Available: <link>. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
  • Prachathai.
    • (2008, 23 May). Some Reasons Why the Supreme Court of Justice Must Not Be Destructed. [Online]. Available: <link>. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
    • (2008, 16 October). The Judge Can Do No Wrong. [Online]. Available: <link>. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
  • TCDcconnect. (2008, 26 June). Design & Representation of Power : 'Demolishing and Rebuliding,' the 2009 Supreme Court Seat is for whom? (Part 1) [Online]. Available: <link>. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
  • ThaiNGO. (2007, October 8). Stop Destroying the Court! [Online]. Available: <link>. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
  • Thansettakij. (2010, 1 July). Abhisit Breaking the Supreme Court Seat Destruction. [Online]. Available: <link>. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).

Others[edit]

  • Judicial crisis in King Chulalongkorn's reign prior to its reform. (2006). [Online]. Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
  • Powers and duties of the Supreme Court of Justice. [Online]. Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
  • Supreme Court of Justice's competency. (2006). [Online]. Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).
  • Trivia as to the Seal of the Supreme Court of Justice. (2008, 16 January). [Online]. Available: <link. (Accessed: 4 November 2010).