المملكة: Overturning the flogging sentence and merely imprisonment for a defendant accused of possessing 3 grams of “hashish”

The Court of Appeal overturned a preliminary ruling that imposed the punishment of eighty lashes on a citizen convicted in a drug case, and decided to confine himself to imprisoning him for two months and banning him from traveling for two years, basing its decision on the failure to prove the legal requirements for the punishment, and the presence of mitigating circumstances related to the small amount seized and the accused’s clean record.

The Judicial Chamber of Appeal overturned the flogging punishment previously issued by the Court of First Instance, which had required the defendant to be flogged. Eighty lashes at once for taking Hashishthe drug.

The appeals judges based the cassation decision on precise legal grounds, most notably that the defendant’s confession was limited to possession of the narcotic substance with the intention of taking it, without proving against them the act of taking it itself with significant evidence.

The court explained that the statutory description of the crime of possession differs fundamentally from the crime of abuse requiring punishment, which requires re-adapting the punishment to suit the established act against the person. The accused.

The court took into account the small quantity seized from the accused’s possession, which did not exceed only three grams of Hashish as one of the reasons for reducing the discretionary punishment.

The court strengthened its lenient sentence based on the defendant’s good character and behavior, and his criminal record being completely free of any Previous security or judicial records, which indicates that the crime was not rooted in his behavior.

The judicial department took into account the family responsibilities placed on the accused, considering that corrective punishment is the most appropriate for his condition to ensure his return as a worthy support to his community and family.

In its new ruling, the court applied the principle of overlapping discretionary punishments, in line with Royal Decree No. “M/33” issued in 1444. E, to ensure the justice of the punishment and its proportionality to the crime.

The Court of Appeal upheld the rest of the paragraphs contained in the initial ruling, most notably the two-month prison sentence, to confirm that forfeiting flogging does not mean escaping deserved punishment.

The court confirmed the penalty of a travel ban for a period of two years beginning after the end of the prison sentence, as a precautionary and preventive measure to ensure the integrity of the convict in the future.