The Thai court system encourages a process of mediation to facilitate the possible resolution of cases. However, there is no right to a jury trial.

Legal disputes in Thailand are usually lengthy. This is partly because of the culture and a lack of faith in those entities that enforce the law.

What is a court case?

The term “court case” is generally used to refer to a criminal or civil trial before a judge or a panel of judges. In Thailand, there is no jury system and the courts decide cases based on their merits. The law does not impose a rule of res judicata but the decisions of previous trials may have an influence on future ones.

Within the Kingdom of Thailand, there are four Specialized Courts of First Instance - the Central Labour Court, the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, the Central Tax Court and the Central Bankruptcy Court - that specialize in certain areas of the law. Only career judges with the requisite knowledge and experience preside over the hearings of these specialized courts.

In addition to the courts of the first instance, there are also nine Courts of Appeal and the Supreme (Dika) Court, all of which hear appeals from the lower courts. The court process can be complex, but the procedures are predictable and a skilled attorney will know what to expect at each stage of a case.

What is the burden of proof in a court case?

The burden of proof is the obligation of a party to present evidence that will convince the fact-finder of the truth of a particular proposition. The burden of proof is higher in criminal cases than civil cases because a conviction could lead to serious consequences such as jail time and substantial fines. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning there is no other logical explanation for the evidence than the defendant committed the crime.

The prosecution has to meet this standard of proof through witness testimony, police reports, and other forms of evidence. However, the defense can also help to meet the burden of proof by presenting its own evidence to create reasonable doubt. This is called “raising a preponderance of the evidence.” A judge decides whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof in a nonjury trial. A jury will decide if the plaintiff has met its burden of proof in a jury trial.

What is the burden of proof in a criminal case?

The burden of proof is the responsibility of a party to provide evidence in support of their claims. The burden typically falls on the prosecution in criminal cases and on the plaintiff in civil cases.

In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a much higher standard of proof than the preponderance of evidence required in civil legal cases. This higher standard is necessary to protect the rights of the accused and to maintain the presumption that they are innocent until proven guilty.

The term “beyond a reasonable doubt” means that the prosecution’s evidence must exclude any other logical explanation for the defendant’s actions. This is a higher standard of proof than what is required in civil cases, but it is not an impossible standard to meet. Whether or not the prosecution meets its burden of proof will be determined by the trier of fact at trial, which is often a judge in a nonjury trial or a jury in a jury trial.

What is the burden of proof in a civil case?

As the party bringing a legal case before the court, you carry a burden to prove your claim. The standard required to discharge this burden differs between criminal and civil law, depending on the type of claim and the consequences.

In criminal cases, prosecutors must prove that the defendant committed a crime beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases involving monetary damages, plaintiffs must show that their version of events is more likely to be true than the defendant’s.

When it comes to civil litigation in Thailand, there is no comprehensive discovery scheme and the burden of proof rests on each party presenting evidence at trial. The basic rule is that each party must file with the court, prior to taking evidence, a list containing descriptions of witnesses and documents to be adduced as well as things, places and experts to be inspected or questioned. Upon hearing the evidence, the judge will decide if there is sufficient basis to proceed with a trial.