Additional Evidence and Impartiality of Courts in Felony Cases March 31st, 2013
It is commonly agreed that jurisprudentially, judicially and legally, the Public Prosecutor has the power of investigation as long as a case is in the investigation stage and subject to his review. During the investigation, the Public Prosecutor looks into witness testimonies and reviews written evidence. Upon completion of his investigative procedures, and the announcement of his decision to consider the individual under investigation a defendant, an indictment decision is issued against the defendant based on the written and oral evidence supplied. The Public Prosecutor then submits this decision to the Attorney General. Once the Public Prosecutor submits the indictment decision to the Attorney General, the case file falls under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General, unless the Attorney General returns the case file to the Public Prosecutor for further investigation. In the event that the Attorney General agrees with the Public Prosecutor's decision, the Attorney General issues his indictment decision based on the evidence submitted by the Public Prosecutor. Accordingly, the Public Prosecutor is then assigned to prepare the Statement of Indictment and to refer it to the court. Once the Attorney General assigns the Public Prosecutor to prepare the Statement of indictment, the Public Prosecutor’s investigative role ceases. Instead, the Public Prosecutor’s role becomes that of representative of the public before the court. His role here is to convince the court of the validity of the allegations made against the defendant, in light of the evidence submitted in the case file (upon which the Attorney General based his indictment decision). After referring the case to court, the trial procedures start, and the Attorney General, as well as the Public Prosecutor, must not conduct any further investigation (including gathering new evidence or hearing the testimony of new witnesses) with respect to the case file.
Additional Evidence and Impartiality of Courts in Felony Cases
Submitting new written evidence during trial actually constitutes a violation of law, and there is no exemption for this rule. Equally, the Public Prosecutor’s request to introduce a new witness whose name was not mentioned in the list of evidence, is a violation of law, in as much as it violates Article (217) of the Criminal Procedures law mentioned below. The court is not entitled, whether upon the request of the Public Prosecutor, or at its own discretion, to accept any additional written evidence not mentioned in the Prosecutor's list of evidence. Otherwise, such a decision shall constitute a violation of law. Furthermore, the court does not have the authority to bring in any individual whose name was not mentioned as a witness in the Prosecutor's list of evidence unless in accordance with Article (226) (1) of the Criminal Procedures Law, which stipulates that such a call can only be made for the purpose of removing ambiguity and ascertaining the truth. If the aim of introducing a new witness to testify before the court is merely to prove the allegation, the court here will be deemed to have lost its impartiality. The Court of Cassation affirmed this in several judicial precedents, including its decision no. (1846/2009) mentioned below. Article (217) of the Criminal Procedures Law states that "the Public Prosecution shall not‌ bring in any individual to testify whose name has not been mentioned in the list of witnesses names submitted to the court, so long as the Defendant or his attorney were not served with a notice of the witnesses name who are required to testify". Article (226) of the Criminal Procedures Law states that "the court shall be entitled during trial to bring in at its own discretion any person to hear his testimony if it deems that this testimony will help in removing ambiguity and ascertaining the truth".
Page 2
Additional Evidence and Impartiality of Courts in Felony Cases
Based on these two articles the Court of Cassation decided in its decision no. (1846/2009) the following: "What is learned from Article (226) (1) of the Criminal Procedures Law and pursuant to what has been adapted by our court, is that the legislator permitted the court pursuant to Article (226) (1) of the Criminal Procedures Law, to bring in, at its own discretion, any individual to hear his testimony as a witness if it deems that this will help in removing ambiguity and ascertaining the truth. Ascertaining the truth means removing any ambiguity connected to the circumstances and facts. Accordingly, the court is not entitled to create evidence against the Defendant, because the court is an impartial party, and in particular, when the Public Prosecution did not mention the name of the witness in the Public Prosecution's list of evidence. ‌ The criminal court is not legally entitled to create evidence against the Defendant by bringing a new witness whose name is not mentioned in the list of evidence submitted to the court, and where the Public Prosecutor did not request to hear such witness pursuant to and in accordance the provisions Article (217) of the Criminal Procedures Law. Otherwise its verdict shall be deemed to have violated the law for being based on illegal evidences and accordingly its verdict shall be due for dismissal".
Page 3