Transcript of the above video:

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing transcripts in Thai Court proceedings. I thought of making this video, I have made a number of videos, I like to kind of do comparative law because Thai Law is so unique, I find it fascinating; I learn new stuff about Thai Law all the time, I am very much a student of Thai Law and definitely I have never claimed to be an absolute expert. All of these videos are for informational purposes only and sometimes I make videos as I find out cool stuff. This is something I have known for a while but it really didn't dawn on me that it was something that was video worthy.

I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Pattaya Mail, that is pattayamail.com, the article is titled: Pattaya City Expats Club: Staying Safe Legally in Thailand in 2023. I believe the speaker in this case was Mr. Barry Kenyon. I have mentioned him before. This guy is like a living legend in Thailand, especially in Pattaya. I never really tend to cite authors, I just cite the publication when we quote things here on the channel but over time, I have kind of realized "wow, you cite him a lot." Well I cite him a lot because he is a great resource, great man and a very interesting guy. I urge those who are watching this video, go check out this article in detail. There is a lot of information in there.

Quoting directly: "Some other differences is there is no transcript of the testimony and legal precedence does not play as important a part with judges having wide latitude on judging a case as well as in imposing sentences." Well regarding 'precedence', it really doesn't exist in any meaningful way that we would use it in the Common Law vernacular. Yes Supreme Court cases carry a lot of weight here in Thailand but even that, it is not an apples to apples comparison when you are looking at stare decisis in a Common Law context.

However meanwhile what is interesting, and the reason for the video is yeah, no testimony transcript. Really interesting that is sort of the function of the judge, that is really interesting Thai Court proceedings that I have ever I have at least been witness to where the judge sort of transcribes the fact finding and starts making conclusions of law via the orders and the judgments of the court and the opinions of the Court. It is a very interesting differentiation between the way it works in the Common Law system where everything is transcribed, it's all on the record, to the Thai system where the actual oral testimony is sort of filtered through the judge, through the judiciary, and, in the last proceeding I saw he had a Dictaphone and he was on the bench and he was saying things into the Dictaphone and then we found out the final findings, when we read the final judgment. So yeah it is a big difference; it is a major difference between the two systems when you look at sort of the Common Law system versus the Thai Law system where there aren't these transcripts. They don't have a transcriptionist; they call it a court reporter in the American vernacular where you have this person sitting there sort of transcribing everything that is going on in the proceedings. That just simply does not exist in the Thai proceedings, it's done in a different way.