THAILAND’S judiciary has taken a notable step towards curbing the misuse of criminal law, with new guidance aimed at preventing lawsuits from being used to silence critics.
In a directive issued on May 25, Supreme Court President Adisak Tantiwong called on judges to more carefully scrutinise cases that may amount to Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) — legal actions often filed not to win on merit, but to intimidate, exhaust or deter individuals from speaking out.
The guidance urges courts to look beyond the surface of criminal complaints, particularly in cases involving public interest, and to identify whether legal proceedings are being weaponised against journalists, researchers, or commentators.
While Thailand has had anti-SLAPP provisions since 2019, enforcement has been uneven. The latest move is widely seen as an attempt by the judiciary to give those safeguards sharper teeth — and clearer direction.
The development has drawn attention in part because of the earlier case involving commentator Murray Hunter, who was detained in Thailand following criminal defamation complaints linked to Malaysia’s Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC).
The case stemmed from articles critical of the regulator, raising concerns among press freedom advocates about the use of cross-border legal mechanisms to pursue critics.
Hunter’s detention, in particular, sparked debate over how domestic institutions could leverage foreign legal systems to initiate criminal action.
In writings published on his Substack, Hunter argues that the legal landscape in Thailand has now shifted significantly.
He claims that with the judiciary’s stronger anti-SLAPP stance, it would no longer be possible for the MCMC to pursue similar criminal defamation action against him in Thailand.
His case was later resolved in Malaysia through a consent order, which included an apology and the removal of disputed articles.
But the broader implications lingered, particularly the precedent it appeared to set.
Legal observers say the Thai judiciary’s latest move could help address those concerns, though much will depend on how consistently the guidance is applied in practice.
For now, the directive signals a more assertive stance from the courts — one that acknowledges growing concerns over the use of legal processes as a tool of pressure rather than justice. – May 26, 2026
.jpeg)
