Page 334 - Q24 -

√«¡º≈ß“π∑“ß«‘™“°“√¢Õß»“ μ√“®“√¬å∏“π‘π∑√å °√—¬«‘‡™’¬√ 319

®÷߇ÀÁπ«à“·¡â«à“»“≈‰∑¬∂◊Õμ“¡À≈—°°ÆÀ¡“¬Õ—ß°ƒ…„π‡√◊ËÕß The doctrine of precedent

°Á∂◊Õμ“¡‡æ’¬ß∫“ß à«π ‡ªìπ°“√«‘π‘®©—¬ “¬°≈“ß√–À«à“ß√–∫∫°ÆÀ¡“¬¢Õß»“≈Õ—ß°ƒ…

·≈–√–∫∫°ÆÀ¡“¬¢Õߪ√–‡∑»∑’Ë„™âª√–¡«≈°ÆÀ¡“¬

°≈à“«‰¥â«à“ ‚¥¬√«¡‡√“√—∫‡Õ“À≈—°°ÆÀ¡“¬Õ—ß°ƒ…´÷Ë߇ªìπÀ≈—°°“√¢—Èπ¡Ÿ≈∞“π

¡“„™â„π√–∫∫°ÆÀ¡“¬‰∑¬®π°≈“¬‡ªìπ‡π◊ÈÕÀ“·≈–®‘μ«‘≠≠“≥¢Õß√–∫∫°ÆÀ¡“¬‰∑¬

®π‰¡àÕ“®®–·¬°ÕÕ°®“°°—π‰¥â „π∑“ߪؑ∫—쑉¡à¡’Õÿª √√§ ”§—≠„π∑“ßÕ√√∂§¥’·μàÕ¬à“ß„¥

Õ¬à“߉√°Áμ“¡ Õ’°¥â“πÀπ÷ËߢÕß√–∫∫°ÆÀ¡“¬§◊Õ √–∫∫°“√μ’§«“¡°ÆÀ¡“¬

∑’ˇ√“√—∫‡Õ“¡“®“°√–∫∫°ÆÀ¡“¬Õ—ß°ƒ…„π∫“߇√◊ËÕ߬—ß¡’ªí≠À“·≈–Õÿª √√§μàÕ°“√

æ‘®“√≥“æ‘æ“°…“Õ√√∂§¥’¢Õß»“≈‰∑¬Õ¬Ÿà¡‘„™àπâÕ¬ ¥—ß∑’ˇ√“®–‰¥âæ‘®“√≥“„π√“¬≈–‡Õ’¬¥
æ√âÕ¡∑—ÈߢâÕ‡ πÕ·π–∑“ß·°â‰¢„π·μà≈–‡√◊ËÕߥ—ßμàÕ‰ªπ’È

√–∫∫°“√μ’§«“¡μ“¡À≈—°°ÆÀ¡“¬Õ—ß°ƒ…∑’ˉ∑¬π”¡“„™â·≈â«¡’ªí≠À“Õÿª √√§

ª√–°“√·√° : √“¬ß“π°“√ª√–™ÿ¡√à“ß°ÆÀ¡“¬

À≈—°°ÆÀ¡“¬Õ—ß°ƒ…¡’«à“ ºŸâæ‘æ“°…“®–Õâ“ßÕ‘ß√“¬ß“π°“√ª√–™ÿ¡√à“ß°ÆÀ¡“¬

¢ÕßΩÉ“¬π‘μ‘∫—≠≠—μ‘¡“ª√–°Õ∫°“√æ‘®“√≥“¢Õß»“≈π—Èπ‡ªìπ°“√μâÕßÀâ“¡ »“≈®–μâÕß
(˘)
æ‘®“√≥“®“°μ—«∫∑°ÆÀ¡“¬π—Èπ‡Õß«à“ΩÉ“¬π‘μ‘∫—≠≠—μ‘¡’‡®μπ“Õ¬à“߉√ Õ¬à“߉√°Áμ“¡
»“≈Õ“®®–Õâ“ßՑ߇հ “√μà“ßÊ ¢Õß∑“ß√“™°“√∑’Ëæ‘¡æ出¬·æ√à°àÕπ°“√√à“ß°ÆÀ¡“¬

æ÷ß —߇°μ¥â«¬«à“ „π§”æ‘æ“°…“»“≈Æ’°“·μà≈–©∫—∫ Õ“®¡’ª√–‡¥Áπ∑’Ë»“≈Æ’°“®–μâÕß«‘π‘®©—¬
À≈“¬ª√–‡¥Áπ ∑’˪√–™ÿ¡„À≠à¢Õß»“≈Æ’°“Õ“®«‘π‘®©—¬∑ÿ°ª√–‡¥Áπ„𧥒π—Èπ À√◊ÕÕ“®«‘π‘®©—¬‡©æ“–
∫“ߪ√–‡¥Áπ°Á‰¥â ´÷Ëß„π§”æ‘æ“°…“»“≈Æ’°“π—Èπ‡Õß®–√–∫ÿ‰«â™—¥‡®π«à“ª√–‡¥Áπ¢âÕ„¥«‘π‘®©—¬‚¥¬∑’Ë
ª√–™ÿ¡„À≠à
(˘)
çThe English courts have until recently taken a restrictive view of the range of
documents which may be so used. For instance, all Parliamentary debates in the
House of Commons and House of Lords are recorded in a text called Hansard.
Traditionally, Hansard could not be referred to explicitly by a court in order to

gauge Parliamentûs intention, çJames A. Holland and Julian S. Webb: Learning
Legal Rules (5th edition, London : Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 224.