The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling that sentenced three men and a woman to life imprisonment and a fine of 50,000 dirhams, on charges of trafficking in psychotropic substances. A special lawyer for each of them.
In detail, the Public Prosecution referred the four defendants to trial on charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and abuse of psychotropic substances, and the incident recorded a felony and a misdemeanor in accordance with the articles of the Federal Law on the Control of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and its amendments and Schedule VI to the law.
The first instance court sentenced the defendants to life imprisonment, a fine of 50,000 dirhams for drug possession, and two years in prison for drug abuse.
The verdict was not accepted by two of the defendants, and we challenged it against the invalidity of the verdict, where they and the other defendants defended one lawyer before the court of first instance, despite their conflicting interests, as he stated that each accused guided the other, which means that each of them accused The other was not to separate the defense of each other, because the defense of one lawyer does not give each of them the full freedom to refute what each defendant acknowledges from the other.
The Federal Supreme Court upheld this appeal, stating that when conflicts of interest between multiple accused in one felony, each of them must have a private lawyer in order to have full freedom to defend him in his or her own interest only, because a single lawyer defends them against the conflict of interest between them. He cannot refute what one decides against the other. The area of conflict of interest, which requires that the defense of each other from the defense of each other must be not valid defense of the other, or that the statements of one of the testimony of proof against the other, so that one lawyer can not defend them all.
She pointed out that the constant access to the codes of government and other papers that the defendants guided each other, and that each of them accuses the other drug trafficking, as the first defendant guided the second defendant, the second defendant guided the third, as well as the third guided the fourth defendant. It was also the first defendant who was asked to buy the drug from the fourth defendant, which would interfere with their conflict of interest, with which the court of first instance had to separate the defense of each other and appoint a special lawyer for each defendant who would have full freedom to defend it in his or her interest. Without others.
The court concluded that the judgment of the court of first instance did not discern this discrepancy, and allowed one lawyer to defend the defendants.Thus, its verdict is null and void because it violates a fundamental rule of public litigation, which must be overturned and referred.