PROBLEMS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF IMPRISONMENT PENALTIES FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT

Abstract

          This research aims to study the concepts, theories, principles, and legal liabilities associated with contempt of court within the trial process of the Court of Justice under Section 33 of the Civil Procedure Code. Additionally, it examines how cases involving contempt of court are processed in foreign jurisdictions and in other Thai courts, including the Constitutional Court, Administrative Court, and Military Court, for the purpose of comparative analysis. The findings aim to provide a foundation for recommendations to amend relevant provisions in the Civil Procedure Code regarding contempt of court.
            It was found that the enforcement of imprisonment for contempt of court under Section 33 of the Civil Procedure Code remains problematic. Although contempt of court is classified as a civil offence, it is punished with imprisonment—a criminal penalty under Section 18(2) of the Criminal Code. Moreover, the court adjudicating the main case is empowered to impose the punishment, denying the alleged contemnor the right to defend themselves as in a standard criminal proceeding. This practice raises concerns, as the same panel of judges involved in the original litigation also determines the punishment, potentially allowing personal emotions or bias to influence judicial decisions. Such a process may conflict with the rule of law, particularly the principle of impartiality in adjudication. Furthermore, the current law lacks clarity regarding who qualifies as a victim in contempt of court cases, thereby preventing members of the general public from filing related complaints.
            Based on these findings, the researcher recommends amending Section 33 of the Civil Procedure Code to clearly define contempt of court as a civil offence. Section 33/1 should be amended to require that a separate panel of judges handle contempt proceedings to ensure fairness for the alleged offender. In addition, Section 33/2 should be revised to clearly define who may be considered a victim in contempt of court cases.