The Federal Supreme Court overturned a sentence that sentenced a defendant to six months in prison for the theft of a person on the public road. The case was referred to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration, because the court did not respond to the defense's request to hear the witnesses.
The Public Prosecution referred the accused to trial on charges of conspiring with unknown individuals to steal the money of a person who was walking at night on the public road, by coercion and beatings, resulting in injuries that prevented him from doing his personal work for no more than 20 days. The function of a police officer.
The first instance court sentenced the defendant to six months' imprisonment in order to uphold the charges against him and ordered him to be expelled from the country after the sentence was executed. The court of appeal upheld this ruling and did not accept the defendant's appeal.
The defense of the accused said that "the ruling violated the law and violated the right of defense, as he insisted in his defense to hear witnesses of exile, in order to deny the victim's claim that four unknown persons assaulted him at night on the street and stole, although he knows the full knowledge of the two neighbors and two friends and share housing, The defense requested that the complainant be brought before the Court of First Instance as well as the Court of Appeal, but that the court had broken that defense. "
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, stating that "in accordance with articles 165, 166 and 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the origin of criminal trials is that the trial must be based on an oral investigation conducted by the court in the face of the accused. Prosecution witnesses are heard and denied whenever possible, In the proceedings of the investigation, and may not pay attention to this asset unless the parties expressly waived or implicitly, and the court to respond to the requests of the defense in what they hold, the possibility that the testimony you hear and allowed to defense to discuss the matter may change the face of opinion, This principle includes all the lust D, whether they are witnesses to prove or deny witnesses, who have already heard in the primary investigations or those who have never heard. »
She pointed out that «hard from reading the papers of the case that the accused had kept his memoirs before the Court of the matter at both levels, an explicit and firm request to summon the victim before the court to discuss, and authorized him to hear the witnesses of exile who identified their names and attached ID card for each witness and phone number and identified by names, And the judge turned it into a response in spite of its substance and did not say his word in it, since it may change by scrutinizing and achieving the opinion in the case, which the court had to state and respond to it with acceptable answers, either by acceptance or rejection, The right to defend what requires veto, to be with a veto referral without a need to consider the rest of the grounds of appeal. »