Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Sentencing Disparity and its Potential Impact on Criminal Cases of Copyright and Trademark Infringement in Thailand: Need for New Provisions and New Approach on Sentencing Guidelines


Affiliations
1 School of Law, University of Phayao, Phayao Province 56000, Thailand
 

This article considers the problem of sentencing disparity in Thailand which could have potential impact on criminal cases of copyright and trademark infringement. At present, the Thai Courts rely on sentencing guidelines to prevent sentencing disparity, but different Courts in different parts of Thailand have formulated and used different sentencing guidelines, so the guidelines produced by different Courts have different standard of sentencing. This could result in a wide disparity in the sentences that the Courts impose on the infringers who commit the same offence, so this article proposes that the relevant provisions and the uniform national sentencing guideline like that of the US approach should be developed and introduced into the Thai legal system, so that the judges overseeing the criminal cases in the Intellectual Property and International Trade Courts, the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases and the Supreme Court of Thailand could rely on such provisions and uniform national sentencing guidelines to prevent sentencing disparity.

Keywords

Sentencing Disparity, Criminal Cases, Copyright Infringement, Trademark Infringement, Sentencing Guidelines, Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Blumstein A, Cohen J, Martin S & Tonry M, Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform, (National Academy Press, Washington D.C) 2 (1983) 9-10.
  • Spohn C, Sentencing Disparity and Discrimination: A Focus on Gender (2009), https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/ files/upm-binaries/27008_4.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Fifteen Years of Guidelines Sentencing: An Assessment of How Well the Federal Criminal Justice System is Achieving the Goals of Sentencing Reform, 2004, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/ default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projectsand- surveys/miscellaneous/15-yearstudy/ 15_year_study_full.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  • Yampracha S, Understanding Thai Sentencing Culture, 2016, https://stax.strath.ac.uk/concern/theses/b8515n49s (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  • Supreme Court Decision No.1304/2500 (1957), Deka: System for Searching Judgments of the Supreme Court (2017), https://deka.in.th/view-38142.html (accessed 18 May 2023).
  • Court of Justice Thailand, The Courts of Justice System: Judicial system, 2018, https://www.coj.go.th/th/content/ page/index/id/91994 (accessed on 18 May 2523); Supasiripongchai N, Intellectual Property Law in Thailand, in Vanhees H (ed), International Encyclopaedia of Laws: Intellectual Property, (Kluwer Law International B.V., Hague), (2022) 14-19.
  • Somjuntra K, Period of confession for defendants and the method of reconciliation and Peaceful Means (2012), https://library.coj.go.th/pdf-view.html?fid=11840&table= files_biblio (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  • Srisanit P, Public Participation in the Court System: Preparation and Disclosure of Sentencing Guidelines (Yee- Tok) in Criminal Cases, 2019, https://www.the101.world/ sentencing-guideline-in-criminal-case (Accessed 18 May 2523); Ingkasit R, Is Judgement Consistent? 2021, https://www.the101.world/is-judgement-consistent (accessed on 18 May 2523); Somjuntra K, Period of Confession for Defendants and the Method of Reconciliation and Peaceful Means, 2012, https://library.coj.go.th/pdf-view.html?fid= 11840&table=files_biblio (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  • Yampracha S, Understanding Thai Sentencing Culture (2016), https://stax.strath.ac.uk/concern/theses/b8515n49s (accessed on 18 May 2023); Chenoweth E & Allen D, Accountability and Transparency: Essential Principles, 2023, https://demo.democracyweb.org/accountability-principles (accessed on 18 May 2023); Open Government Network, Factsheet - Public Accountability, 2015, https://www.open government.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/NIOGNFactsheet- Public-Accountability.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  • Suparp U, The Philosophy of Criminology when Sentencing in Thai Courts: A Case Study of Intentional, Negligent and Provoked Criminals, Thailand Journal of Law and Policy, 5 (1) (2002), http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/ sentencingsuparp.html (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  • Imran M, Theories of punishment with special reference to preventive and reformative theories, International Journal of Socio-Legal Analysis and Rural Development, 3 (2) (2017) 85-95.
  • Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) (Thailand), Section 27.
  • Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) (Thailand), Section 69, Paragraph 1.
  • Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) (Thailand), Section 69, Paragraph 2.
  • Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) (Thailand), Section 28/1.
  • Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) (Thailand), Section 69/1; Supasiripongchai N, The development of the copyright exception in Thailand: Where has it come from, Where is it now under the Thai Copyright Amendment Act 2015, and Where is it heading? European Intellectual Property Review, 38 (10) (2016)624–625.
  • Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) (Thailand), Section 31.
  • Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) (Thailand), Section 70, Paragraph 1 and 2.
  • Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) (Thailand), Section 108.
  • Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) (Thailand), Section 109.
  • Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) (Thailand), Section 110(1).
  • Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) (Thailand), Section 109/1.
  • Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) (Thailand), Section 111(1) and (2).
  • Blumstein A, Cohen J, Martin S & Tonry M, Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform, Volume II (National Academy Press, Washington D.C) 1983, 9-10.
  • Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996) (Thailand), Section 3.
  • Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996) (Thailand), Section 7(1).
  • Court of Justice Thailand, The Courts of Justice System: Judicial system, 2018, https://www.coj.go.th/th/content/ page/index/id/91994 (accessed on 18 May 2023); Morgan A, TRIPS to Thailand: The Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, Fordham International Law Journal, 23 (2000) 796–797.
  • Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996) (Thailand), Section 14 and Section 15; Section 15 was amended by Section 8 of the Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (No.2) B.E. 2558 (2015); Morgan A, TRIPS to Thailand: The Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, Fordham International Law Journal, 23 (2000) 796–797; Court of Justice Thailand, The Courts of Justice System: Judicial system, 2018, https://www.coj.go.th/th/content/page/ index/id/91994 (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  • Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996) (Thailand), Section 14, Section 15, and Section 12; Section 12 was amended by section 6 of the Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (No.2) B.E. 2558 (2015).
  • Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996) (Thailand), Section 5, Paragraph 2.
  • Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996) (Thailand), Section 6.
  • Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996) (Thailand), Section 10.
  • Supreme Court of Thailand, Interview of Chief Justice of the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, High Court Booklet April-June, 2018, http://www.supremecourt.or.th/file/news/2-61.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  • Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996) (Thailand), Section 47, Paragraph 1.
  • Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996) (Thailand), Section 47, Paragraph 2.
  • Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996) (Thailand), Section 47, Paragraph 3.
  • Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996) (Thailand), Section 8.
  • Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996) (Thailand), Section 11.
  • Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996) (Thailand), Section 38; Kayasit P, Thailand Introduces Changes to the Appeal Proceedings for IP-Related Cases, 2017, https://www.tilleke.com/resources/thailand-introduceschanges- appeal-proceedings-ip-related-cases (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  • Establishment of the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (Thailand), Section 4.
  • Establishment of the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (Thailand), Section 5, Paragraph 1.
  • Establishment of the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (Thailand), Section 3.
  • Establishment of the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (Thailand), Section 5, Paragraph 2(1); Kayasit P, Thailand Introduces Changes to the Appeal Proceedings for IP-Related Cases, https://www.tilleke.com/ resources/thailand-introduces-changes-appeal-proceedingsip- related-cases (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  • Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases, Information relating to the Intellectual Property and International Trade Case Division, 2023, https://appealsc.coj.go.th/th/content/ category/detail/id/2904/cid/2905/iid/34522 (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  • Establishment of the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (Thailand), Section 6, Paragraph 2.
  • Establishment of the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (Thailand), Section 7, Paragraphs 2 and 3.
  • Act for the Establishment of and Procedure for Intellectual Property and International Trade Court B.E. 2539 (1996) (Thailand), Section 40, Paragraph 1.
  • Supreme Court of Thailand, The Intellectual Property and International Trade Case Division of the Supreme Court, 2023, http://www.supremecourt.or.th/en/divisions (accessed on 18 May 2023); Sujintaya S & Tangburanakij C, Thailand: Change of Appeal System for Intellectual Property Cases, 2016, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=777fb5ffb889- 4641-addb-56ebfc6c2084 (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  • Supreme Court of Thailand, The Intellectual Property and International Trade Case Division of the Supreme Court, 2023, http://www.supremecourt.or.th/en/divisions (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  • Damrongkulnan W, Factors in determining the period of imprisonment for the assault offences and the design of sentencing guidelines in a form of computer program, Thammasat Law Journal, 47 (2) (2561) 382-386.
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Original introduction to the Guidelines Manual; Abrams J, The Evolution of Federal Sentencing Practice During the Era of the Sentencing Guidelines, 2022, https://www.josephabramslaw.com/the-evolution-of-federalsentencing- practice-during-the-era-of-the-sentencingguidelines/ (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  • Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 991(b)(1)(A).
  • Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3553(a)(2).
  • Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3553(a)(1).
  • Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3553(a)(3) and (4).
  • Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3553(a)(6).
  • Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3553(b).
  • Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3742(a)(3).
  • Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3742(b)(3).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021- Chapter One: Introduction, Authority, and General Application Principles, 2021, https://www.ussc.gov/ sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2021/GLMFull.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  • Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 991(b)(1)(A).
  • Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 991(b)(2).
  • Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 991(b)(1)(B).
  • Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 994(a)(1).
  • Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 994(a)(1)(A) and (B).
  • Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 994(a)(2).
  • Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 994(p).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Section 2B5.3.
  • Rusch J, Sentencing guidelines for copyright pirates in the United States and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: A comparative perspective, Fordham International Law Journal, 26 (2) (2002) 315-336.
  • United States Sentencing Commission, An Overview of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 2022, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/about/overview/ Overview_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Section 2B5.3(a).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Section 2B5.3(b)(1).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Background of Section 2B5.3.
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Application Note of Section 2B5.3, Subdivision 2(A).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Application Note of Section 2B5.3, Subdivision 1.
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Application Note of Section 2B5.3, Subdivision 2(A)(ii)(iii)(v) and (vi).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Application Note of Section 2B5.3, Subdivision 2(B).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Application Note of Section 2B5.3, Subdivision 2(C).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Application Note of Section 2B5.3, Subdivision 2(D).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Application Note of Section 2B5.3, Subdivision 2(E).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Section 2B5.3(b)(2).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Section 2B5.3(b)(3).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Section 2B5.3(b)(4).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Section 2B5.3(b)(5).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Section 2B5.3(b)(6).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Application Note of Section 2B5.3, Subdivision 3.
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Section 2B5.3(b)(7).
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Application Note of Section 2B5.3, Subdivision 5.
  • United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2021, Application Note of Section 2B5.3, Subdivision 5(A) (B) (C) and (D).

Abstract Views: 75

PDF Views: 39




  • Sentencing Disparity and its Potential Impact on Criminal Cases of Copyright and Trademark Infringement in Thailand: Need for New Provisions and New Approach on Sentencing Guidelines

Abstract Views: 75  |  PDF Views: 39

Authors

Noppanun Supasiripongchai
School of Law, University of Phayao, Phayao Province 56000, Thailand

Abstract


This article considers the problem of sentencing disparity in Thailand which could have potential impact on criminal cases of copyright and trademark infringement. At present, the Thai Courts rely on sentencing guidelines to prevent sentencing disparity, but different Courts in different parts of Thailand have formulated and used different sentencing guidelines, so the guidelines produced by different Courts have different standard of sentencing. This could result in a wide disparity in the sentences that the Courts impose on the infringers who commit the same offence, so this article proposes that the relevant provisions and the uniform national sentencing guideline like that of the US approach should be developed and introduced into the Thai legal system, so that the judges overseeing the criminal cases in the Intellectual Property and International Trade Courts, the Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases and the Supreme Court of Thailand could rely on such provisions and uniform national sentencing guidelines to prevent sentencing disparity.

Keywords


Sentencing Disparity, Criminal Cases, Copyright Infringement, Trademark Infringement, Sentencing Guidelines, Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual

References