Retrial of accused accused of deportation for “communications”

The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling that jailed and deported an accused of facilitating communications services illegally.The court decided to refer his case to the Court of Appeal, stating that the ruling deported the accused from the state even though the charge he committed is not a felony to which this measure applies.

The Public Prosecutor referred a defendant to trial on charges that it was easy for others to use telecommunications services through the information network, and that he provided third-party communications services without access to documents, demanding to punish him in accordance with the laws of information technology and the telecommunications sector

The Court of First Instance sentenced the defendant to six months imprisonment and fined him 20,000 dirhams for the charges against him and deported him from the country after serving the prescribed penalty and obliging him to judicial fees, and upheld by the Court of Appeal.This ruling was not accepted by the Public Prosecution and challenged him.

The Public Prosecution stated in its appeal that the verdict violated the law and erred in its application, as it upheld the verdict and ordered the defendant to be removed from the state, even though the charge he committed was not a felony or an offense on the offer, which flawed the verdict.

The Federal Supreme Court upheld this appeal, stating that "the decision, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 121 and 129 of the Penal Code, that deportation from the country from the criminal measures authorized by the law to the court if it punishes the foreign defendant with a restrictive penalty for freedom in reinforcing crimes, whether in a felony or misdemeanor, subject to its discretion. According to the nature of the crime and the seriousness of the accused to society, with the power to understand the reality in the case, provided that the extraction is justified.

She pointed out that the appeal judgment ruled that the defendant was removed from the country after the execution of the penalty without demonstrating his criminal danger and that his stay in the state poses a danger to public security, clearly and clearly, which makes this court unable to exercise control over these matters, which stigmatizes the ruling inefficiency in reasoning and corruption in inference what It shall be vetoed in part to be with the veto referral.