Transcripts of the above video:

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing precedence as it pertains to the Thai Legal system. For those coming from a Common law background, the notion of precedent is very much at the heart of the legal tradition in the Common Law tradition and it's something that those who hail from jurisdictions that use that tradition, it is very difficult to sort of decouple your mind from that way of thinking paradigmatically. I have had that issue myself; I still have the issue. From time to time I make presumptions that just simply aren't the case here in Thailand because not only does Thailand utilize a Civil Law System, it also utilizes its own unique version of the Civil Law, very much a Thai, if you want to call it the Thai version of the Civil Law but it's Thailand Civil Law System and it just operates the way it operates, it is unique, for lack of a better term. So bringing in certain presumptions are often times not particularly prudent. 

That said, 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. Quoting directly: "Some other differences is there is no transcript of the testimony and legal precedence does not play as an important part with judges having wide latitude on judging a case as well as in imposing sentences." Yeah precedence, so called 'stare decisis' as we call it in Latin or 'let the decision stand' basically that whole notion of a holding in another case where similar analysis was applied will hold in a forthcoming case does not hold true in Thailand at least to the extent that it holds true in the Common Law jurisdictions. When I say that, I don't want that to be construed as mitigating against the underlying conclusion. Quite honestly, it's pretty safe to say you cannot really rely that heavily if at all on precedence in the Thai legal tradition. Now that said, certain Supreme Court decisions, they are going to carry a lot of weight here in Thailand but like Trial Court decisions and things that maybe use inter-jurisdictionally for example in an analogous situation in the United States or another Common Law jurisdiction like in England for example where one Court said this in this situation and therefore it applies in the present situation, you are not going to see that kind of logic apply when you are dealing with the Thai Legal System. 

Now there are those that make the argument that precedent is very useful because you have uniformity of law, I kind of have come to the conclusion I don't like it, weirdly. I kind of like the way the Thais do it where 'look we are going to decide this thing under these current circumstances'. Now again this also may factor into the fact that Thailand uses an inquisitorial system rather than an adversarial system when adjudicating matters, especially findings of fact and conclusions of law so again that may play in but again, I often find myself now questioning the validity, well not the validity but just sort of doing thought experiments where I do say to myself 'why are we still using Hadley versus Baxendale in contract law disputes in the United States; this thing that goes back 500 years into Blackstone or whatever and we are still using it now?' Why should that control? Why not just deal with cases on a case by case basis? I think there is arguments both ways. Again uniformity and some level of certainty in the legal system, the lack of certainty is a big complaint I hear from a lot of foreigners in the Thai Legal System. Also misunderstanding of how it works but that is another issue entirely. Again I see the argument but at the end of the day, Thailand operates the way it operates and we basically just have to deal with it.