The Federal Supreme Court overturned an appealing judgment, which ruled against life imprisonment, incarceration and deportation, against persons accused of drug trafficking and drug use, as it showed that the ruling violated the law, as it demonstrated their conviction based on the statements of each other, while one lawyer was defending them together, despite Their interest, opposing the decision to refer the case to the Court of Appeal for further review.
In the details, the Public Prosecution referred two defendants to the criminal trial, accusing them of possessing heroin drugs for the purpose of trafficking and drug abuse, and the second accused was charged with a third charge, which is the abuse of psychotropic substances, demanding that they be punished in accordance with the articles of the Anti-Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Law.
The Court of First Instance ruled in presence and unanimously to punish those accused for life imprisonment for the first charge assigned to them in drug trafficking, and to imprison the first accused for the charge of drug abuse for two years, and to imprison the second accused for the second and third counts for two years, and deport them from the state after carrying out the punishment, and to confiscate the seizures.
The appeals court upheld the verdict, and the convicted were not satisfied with it, so we appealed it to the Federal Supreme Court.
The defendant’s delegated defense lawyer, Ali Al-Abadi, said, “The ruling violated the law and violated the right to defense, in violation of the ruling of the Criminal Procedure Law, which requires that a defendant appear with a lawyer to defend him, and it is not permissible to assign a lawyer to defend defendants in the same incident, if their interests conflict And it was evident from the minutes of the hearings of both the court of first instance and the court of the second degree that he represented with one of the defendants one lawyer to defend them, despite their conflict of interest, as the statements of each of them are evidence of the condemnation of the other, which defects the ruling ».
For its part, the Supreme Federal Court upheld this appeal, explaining that it is decided in the court’s judiciary that when the conflict of interest between two accused in one crime is necessary, each defendant must have a private lawyer who has full freedom to defend him within the scope of his interest, and that the papers fixed by the codes of the two rulings The first and the appeal are evidence that the two defendants denounced each other's statements, and that in both rulings, one lawyer is one of them together, which defects the ruling in violation of the law, which requires its reversal and referral.