Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 196

Summary: - Compliance is required with decisions issued by the Ministry of Information concerning the regulation of broadcasting. Article 8 of Law 61 of 2007 concerning Audiovisual Media. - Issuance of Minister of Information Decision No. 78 of 2012 concerning Controls on Media Coverage, Advertising and Promotion for National Assembly and Municipal Council Elections. Its import. Prohibition on broadcasting, rebroadcasting or publishing any interviews, programmes or reports with or about any candidates for National Assembly or Municipal Council elections on polling day or the preceding day. - No reports or audiovisual works containing publicity or media coverage about any candidates or about elections generally may be broadcast, rebroadcast or published unless they comply with Law 61 of 2007 and its Implementing Regulations and the provisions of Law 3 of 2006. Violation thereof. Its import. - The offence of broadcasting or rebroadcasting any reports or audiovisual works containing publicity or media coverage about any candidates or about elections generally on polling day or the preceding day. Its completion. Specific intent. Not required. General intent suffices. Its realization. By broadcasting advertisements about certain National Assembly candidates and discussing the elections during the prohibited period with knowledge thereof. Establishing its presence or absence. A matter of fact. The condition thereof. Express and separate discussion in the judgment of it or of other elements of this offence. Not required, so long as the judgment’s reasoning contains indications of its existence. Rule: The legislature required, in the second paragraph of Article 8 of Law No. 61 of 2007 concerning Audiovisual Media, compliance with decisions issued by the Ministry of Information concerning the regulation of broadcasting. The Minister of Information issued Decision No. 78 of 2012 concerning Controls on Media Coverage, Advertising and Promotion for National Assembly and Municipal Council Elections, Article 7 of which provides: “It is prohibited to broadcast, rebroadcast or publish any interviews, programmes or reports with or about any candidates for National Assembly or Municipal Council elections on polling day or the preceding day.” Article 8 stressed that no reports or audiovisual works containing publicity or media coverage about any candidates or about elections generally may be broadcast, rebroadcast or published unless they comply with the provisions of Law No. 61 of 2007 and its Implementing Regulations and the provisions of Law No. 3 of 2006 and its aforementioned Implementing Regulations, . Accordingly, the first paragraph of item 2 of Article 13 of the first Law concerning Audiovisual Media prescribed, for the channel director, the preparer and presenter of the media material and every person responsible for its broadcast, a fine of not less than three thousand dinars and not more than ten thousand dinars for any other violation of the provisions of this Law. Article 20 of the same Law also provides: “The Minister shall issue the Implementing Regulations or decisions necessary to implement the provisions of this Law within six months from the date it enters into force ...........” Examination of the preceding Articles shows that the offence of broadcasting or rebroadcasting any reports or audiovisual works containing publicity or media coverage about any candidates or about elections generally on polling day or the preceding day, in violation of the Minister of Information’s decision, is completed merely by broadcasting or rebroadcasting any publicity or media coverage about any candidates or about elections generally outside the time specified by the aforementioned Minister of Information’s decision. The law does not require specific intent for this offence, but is satisfied with general intent, which is realized in the present case by the appellant—the Director General of Al-Rai Satellite Channel—broadcasting advertisements about certain National Assembly candidates and discussing the elections during the prohibited period with knowledge thereof. Establishing the presence or absence of this intent from the facts and circumstances of the case falls within the trial court’s jurisdiction without further review, so long as the implications of those facts and circumstances are not incompatible with the court’s inference. The judgment need not expressly and separately discuss the element of criminal intent or any other element of the aforementioned offence so long as its reasoning contains indications of its existence. Since what the challenged judgment stated—in the manner set out above—establishes the legal elements of the offence of which it convicted the appellant, the latter’s contention in this regard is likewise unfounded.