The Federal Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the Public Prosecutor against an appeal ruling to overturn the first instance ruling, imprisoning a husband who refused to execute a court order to extradite a child to his foster mother, explaining that the defendant was sentenced to a penalty in a previous case on the same charge, and it cannot be retried for the same order again.
In detail, the prosecutor referred a defendant to trial for failing to enforce a Shari'a court order to extradite the child to his complaining mother through the court's police office.
The Federal Court of First Instance sentenced the defendant to three months imprisonment for the charge, and obliged him to pay the criminal case fees of 50,000 dirhams, and then the Court of Appeal canceled the verdict, and again ruled that the case may not be considered for the previous adjudication.
The prosecution did not accept this judiciary, which challenged it, explaining that the verdict erred in the application of the law, as the verdict ruled that the case may not be considered for the previous adjudication, while the crime of failure to execute the judicial order is one of the ongoing crimes, which continue to occur the offending act, which is The case of continuation shall not be terminated until after the end of the state of abstention, and this shall be accomplished by executing the judicial order. Since the judgment refrained from considering the case on the pretext of adjudicating it, it shall have violated the law to be revoked.
The Federal Supreme Court rejected the prosecution's appeal, explaining in the rationale that it is planned that `` continuous crimes are those that require the perpetrator positive or negative activity that creates an existing case of criminalization, which often requires renewed activity to preserve, and ends only when the state of continuation ends. ''
She pointed out that the appeal judgment, based on the above, addressed the examination of this payment, and responded with a palatable response after investigating the reality of reality and achieved and ended in his blogs to the existence of preconditions for adjudication in the two cases.
She added that it is stated in the papers that the defendant had already been tried for violating the order issued in a petition to extradite the child to the complaining mother, in January 2018, and sentenced to three months in prison, and therefore not retrial for the same thing again, unless the complainant issued a new order and the court The previous judgment attached to the papers, as well as the referral order in the previous case attached to the papers, shows that, when compared with the charge in this new case, that their subject is the same for the same incident, as well as the date, persons and charge, with which, in this case, the defendant's response to his request.
The judgment concluded that the defendant did not initiate any other criminal activity, namely, the act of abstaining from extradition after the first order, which had already been tried, and therefore what the prosecution raises in the face of this obituary is merely an objective controversy within the authority of the court. The lawsuit, which may not be raised before this court, which leads to the mourning in this reason on the basis of moral refusal.