The Royal Gazette published the Supreme Court President's guidelines on improper conduct in criminal prosecutions aimed at preventing lawsuits used to silence, exploit, or harass others, ensuring fairness.
On 30 May 2026 GMT+7, the Royal Gazette published the Supreme Court President's guidelines on improper conduct in criminal prosecutions, dated 29 May 2026 GMT+7. It states that since courts play a crucial role in delivering justice by fairly and equally resolving societal conflicts, exercising legal rights in court must be done in good faith. This principle underpins the rule of law and social order. To ensure court proceedings are not misused against these fundamental values, Section 161/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to scrutinize and filter criminal lawsuits to ensure they are exercised in good faith and not to exploit or harass. Therefore, to carry out prosecutions cautiously, correctly, and appropriately in line with the law’s intent,
the Supreme Court President, under the authority of Section 5 of the Judicial Administration Code, issues the following guidelines.
Clause 1: Filing a lawsuit in bad faith or by distorting facts to harass or exploit the defendant, or to achieve benefits beyond those lawfully entitled under Section 161/1, includes the following:
(1) Filing lawsuits that constitute harassment, intimidation, unjust humiliation, or cause undue hardship to the defendant in defending the case.
(2) Filing lawsuits intended to pressure the defendant to act or refrain from acting for improper benefits or to negotiate unlawful advantages.
(3) Filing lawsuits by intentionally asserting false material facts or concealing such facts.
Clause 2: The following circumstances should raise suspicion of violating Section 161/1:
(1) Cases where the alleged offense occurred in multiple jurisdictions, but the lawsuit is filed in a location far from the defendant’s residence or usual workplace without convenience for evidence gathering or benefit for case consideration.
(2) Lawsuits filed because the defendant participated in campaigns, advocacy, or expressed opinions to protect human rights, natural resources and the environment, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests.
(3) Lawsuits filed because the defendant disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct.
(4) Lawsuits filed because the defendant is responsible for adjudicating offenses by the plaintiff during fact-finding or issuing decisions.
(5) Multiple lawsuits arising from the same cause without reasonable grounds, creating complications and unfairness for the defendant in defending the cases.
(6) Lawsuits filed because the defendant exercised rights or performed duties under the law, where the complaint does not clearly show bad faith or misconduct by the defendant.
Clause 3: When there is reasonable suspicion that a lawsuit violates Section 161/1, the court shall order the plaintiff to explain and present evidence. The court may also summon other evidence as necessary for investigation and judgment. The court may assign court officers to assist in collecting evidence. If it is clearly apparent the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in violation of Section 161/1, the court may dismiss the case at the preliminary stage.
Clause 4: If the case is at the preliminary investigation stage, the court may follow Clause 3 simultaneously with the investigation, then decide to dismiss or maintain the case as it sees fit in the same proceeding.
Clause 5: When exercising discretion under Section 161/1, the court should consider the circumstances and severity of the alleged conduct, public benefits to be gained, as well as the legitimacy and credibility of the justice process.
Clause 6: If the defendant claims the lawsuit violates Section 161/1 but appears to be delaying proceedings, the court should suspend or terminate the defendant's claim and proceed without delay. The court may issue orders to prohibit actions that cause annoyance or delay.
Clause 7: For other criminal proceedings not specified in these guidelines, courts should adhere to principles of good faith and proportionality as the basis for exercising discretion under the law.