After the death sentence, a word causes an unexpected development in the case of the murderer of broadcaster Shaima Jamal

A sudden development witnessed in the case of the trial of Judge Ayman Hajjaj and his partner Hussein Al-Garabli, in the case of the murder of Shaimaa, the journalist, who was sentenced to death by hanging by the Giza Criminal Court in Egypt.

Adel Taha, the lawyer, told a number of local newspapers, "The criminal court's ruling will be overturned, because the court that issued its ruling inadvertently made a legal error during the ruling."

Lawyer Adel Taha added that the court violated the text of a binding legal article that states that "the criminal court may not issue a death sentence except with the unanimous opinions of its members."

Taha clarified that what happened during the verdict was pronounced that the esteemed court panel did not mention the word “unanimously” during the recitation of the verdict, and the lesson here in the article in question is the verdict, not the session minutes.

And the lawyer added: It is not a lesson that the court had uttered a word unanimously during the referral to the Mufti, because the law required unanimity in the text of the judgment, not in the referral decision.

Lawyer Adel Taha pointed out that the Court of Cassation affirmed an important legal principle during its consideration of the appeal, which is that the text of unanimity of opinions accompanying the pronouncement of the death sentence is a necessary condition for the validity of the issuance of that sentence.

Taha pointed out that the court made it clear that what matters in the judgments is what the judge pronounces in the public session after hearing the case, stressing - the court - the insufficiency of what is included in the reasons for the death sentence to indicate the conclusion of a consensus, as long as it is not proven in the judgment paper that those reasons have been read. Publicly speaking with the operative.

The lawyer continued that the Court of Cassation, in its rationale, stressed that the omission of the text on the consensus of opinion in connection with the pronouncement of the death sentence, cannot be considered a material error of the young man who was pronounced, and as a consequence, the judgment must be null and void.

Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news