A shopper at a supermarket discovered the presence of spoiled macaroni products with insects, so he only photographed and posted the videos on a social networking site, with the aim of warning and raising awareness, but he did not realize that he would be referred to trial for assaulting the privacy of others.
A first-degree court ruled his innocence, then the appeals court convicted him and punished him with a fine, so the Supreme Federal Court decided the case, and decided his innocence, confirming that the elements of the crime of assaulting the privacy of others are not available.
In the details, the Public Prosecution referred a defendant to the criminal trial for assaulting the privacy of the "hypermarket", by filming a "spaghetti" with a defect, and posting the videos on "WhatsApp", requesting that he be punished according to the articles of Decree Law No. (5) of 2012 on combating technical crimes the information.
The court of first instance in attendance ruled that the accused was acquitted of what was assigned to him, then the Court of Appeal ruled to cancel the first ruling, punish the accused by fining him 3000 dirhams and confiscating the phone used in the crime, for what was assigned to him and obliging him to pay the fees. The accused was not satisfied with the ruling, and he appealed against him before the Federal Supreme Court.
The defendant’s defense said in his appeal: “The ruling made a mistake in applying the law when his client condemned the crime of infringing on the privacy of others, without clarifying the availability of the elements of this crime, because the incident he committed is depicting corrupt products displayed in a place with the intention of informing the relevant official authorities By controlling food safety and public awareness, which is a right guaranteed by law, and criminal intent, which is bad faith, is not available against him. ”
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, confirming that the text of Article 54 of the Penal Code: “There is no crime if the act occurred in the fulfillment of a duty mandated by Islamic law or the law, if the person who committed the act is authorized by law”, with the result that the legislator required that the crime of assault be committed on The privacy of people is that the user of the information network must have a bad intention, intending what is spread by harming the reputation of others, but if he believes in what he publishes that he performs a duty required by Islamic law, as a ward to spoil, or block an excuse pretended to the same or his money, or the belief in performing a legal duty, such as reporting For a crime or proof of a case that is feared to be gone Aid official authorities on the performance of its functions, the bad faith sacrificed against him is discharged, and then precluded criminal intent in the crime of assault on privacy contained in the text of article 21 of the law.
She stated that the incident attributed to the defendant assaulted the privacy of a supermarket to shoot video clips of food products with insects, and send them to the official authorities to take their affairs regarding the seizure of these products, and warn the public of these products, believing that he performed a legal and legal duty, so informing the official authorities is not an infringement on Privacy of persons, an order which negates one of the elements of the crime of attacking the privacy attributed to the accused, and if the ruling violates this consideration, he will have violated the law, which must be reversed.
The defendant posted a video on "social media" of spoiled pasta for sale.