Supreme Court president urges courts to curb SLAPP-style criminal lawsuits

The president of the Supreme Court has issued new recommendations urging courts to screen and dismiss bad-faith criminal lawsuits, including SLAPP-style lawsuits, in a move aimed at preventing the justice system from being used to harass activists, whistleblowers, public-interest campaigners and officials performing their legal duties.

The recommendations, titled “Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court on Proceedings Brought in Bad Faith in Criminal Cases, B.E. 2569 (2026)”, were published on the Royal Gazette website on May 29, 2026.

They were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organisation of the Courts of Justice and are intended to guide courts in applying Section 161/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Section 161/1 gives courts the power to examine whether a criminal complaint has been filed in good faith, or whether it is being used to exploit, harass or unfairly disadvantage a defendant.

Courts told to screen bad-faith complaints

The recommendations say courts should carefully screen criminal lawsuits to ensure that the right to bring a case is exercised honestly and in line with the spirit of the law.

A case may be considered to have been filed in bad faith if it distorts facts, is intended to harass or take advantage of the defendant, or seeks an outcome beyond what the plaintiff may legitimately obtain under the law.

The guidance identifies several types of conduct that may fall within this category, including lawsuits filed to intimidate, threaten, humiliate or create unreasonable hardship for defendants as they defend themselves in court.

It also covers cases brought to pressure defendants into acting, or refraining from acting, for an improper benefit, as well as cases involving the deliberate allegation of false material facts or the concealment of important facts.

Activists and whistleblowers covered

A major political significance of the recommendations lies in their focus on lawsuits brought against people involved in public-interest activities.

Courts are advised to treat certain types of cases as grounds for suspicion that a lawsuit may have been filed in violation of Section 161/1.

These include criminal complaints filed because a defendant took part in a campaign, made demands or expressed opinions to protect human rights, natural resources and the environment, consumer rights, labour rights or other public interests.

The recommendations also cover cases filed because a defendant disclosed information about corruption or unlawful misconduct.

This makes the guidance particularly relevant to activists, community campaigners, labour advocates, consumer-rights groups, environmental defenders and whistleblowers who may face criminal complaints after speaking out or exposing wrongdoing.

What are SLAPP-style lawsuits?

SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

The term is commonly used to describe legal action that appears intended not mainly to win a case on its merits, but to pressure, silence or burden people who speak out on matters of public concern.

In practice, SLAPP-style lawsuits can force defendants to spend time, money and energy defending themselves, even when the case may ultimately be weak or dismissed.

The Supreme Court president’s recommendations do not direclty mention SLAPP, but the types of lawsuits identified — especially those targeting public-interest campaigns, whistleblowing and lawful duties — closely match the concerns usually associated with SLAPP-style litigation.

Courts may dismiss cases at an early stage

Under the new guidance, if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a criminal complaint violates Section 161/1, the court should order the plaintiff to explain the case and present evidence.

The court may also call additional evidence as necessary before deciding whether the case should proceed.

Court officers or case officers may be assigned to help examine and collect evidence for the court’s inquiry.

If it is clearly apparent that the plaintiff has filed the case in violation of Section 161/1, the court may dismiss the complaint at the complaint-examination stage, before the case advances further.

For cases already at the preliminary examination stage, the court may consider the bad-faith issue together with the preliminary inquiry and then decide whether to dismiss the case or accept it for trial.

Filing cases in distant courts may raise suspicion

The recommendations also identify forum-related tactics as a possible warning sign.

If a plaintiff claims that the case arose in several locations and files the complaint in a court far from the defendant’s home or regular workplace, without helping the collection of evidence or benefiting the trial, the court may treat this as a suspicious circumstance.

This provision is significant because defendants in public-interest cases may face additional pressure if they are forced to travel long distances, spend more money and deal with logistical difficulties while defending themselves.

Multiple lawsuits from the same issue also flagged

The guidance also warns against filing several cases arising from the same grounds without reasonable cause, particularly where doing so creates difficulty or unfairness for the defendant.

This could apply to situations in which a defendant faces multiple criminal complaints over the same public statement, campaign activity or disclosure.

Courts are also advised to scrutinise cases filed because a defendant exercised a legal right or performed a legal duty, unless the complaint clearly shows that the defendant acted in bad faith or engaged in misconduct.

Balance between protection and delay tactics

The recommendations also seek to prevent misuse of Section 161/1 by defendants.

If a defendant claims that a case was filed in bad faith but appears to be using the claim merely to delay proceedings, the court should suspend or end consideration of that claim and proceed with the case without delay.

Courts may also issue orders to prevent procedural conduct that causes nuisance or delays the proceedings.

This means the guidance is designed to strike a balance: preventing bad-faith criminal cases while also stopping defendants from using anti-SLAPP arguments as a tactic to stall legitimate proceedings.

Public trust in justice system highlighted

In exercising discretion under Section 161/1, courts are advised to consider the circumstances and seriousness of the alleged offence, the public interest involved, and the legitimacy and credibility of the justice process if the case is allowed to continue.

For other criminal proceedings not specifically covered by the recommendations, courts are urged to apply the principles of good-faith litigation and proportionality as the basis for exercising legal discretion.

The recommendations were announced on May 25, 2026, before being published in the Royal Gazette on May 29.