Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 206

Summary: - Criminal intent in the offence of having intercourse with a female without force, threat or deception. Its establishment. Through the perpetrator’s knowledge being directed, and his will tending, towards committing the act constituting the offence, namely sexual intercourse. The victim’s actual age. It is the age relied upon in this offence, even if contrary to what the perpetrator stated. - The law presumes that, when committing the offence, the perpetrator knows the victim’s actual age, unless exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons negate this. The reason therefor. An example concerning the lengthy relationship preceding the incident, enabling him to know her actual age. Rule: The criminal intent required for the offence of having intercourse with a female without force, threat or deception is established through the perpetrator’s knowledge being directed, and his will tending, towards committing the act constituting the offence, namely sexual intercourse. The victim’s actual age in the offence of intercourse—the subject matter of the case—is the age relied upon in this offence, even if contrary to what the perpetrator stated. The law presumes that the perpetrator, when committing the offence against someone below the age specified by law, knows her actual age, unless exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons exist that negate this presumption. This is because anyone who proceeds to commit such an offence must ascertain, by every possible means, the true nature of all surrounding circumstances before proceeding with his act. If he errs in his assessment, he is liable to punishment unless evidence establishes that he could not, under any circumstances, have ascertained the truth. That being so, what the judgment stated in its account of the facts of the case, relying on the evidence available therein which the court assessed as sufficient and justified—as previously explained—establishes the elements of the offence of which it convicted the appellant, including criminal intent. The judgment also responded sufficiently and soundly to the appellant’s defence that he lacked criminal intent, dismissing it on the basis that the record established that the appellant had a lengthy relationship with the victim preceding the incident and could have known her actual age; that his statement that she told him she was 18 years old had no support in the record, in addition to her denial thereof; and that the record was devoid of exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons. This suffices to establish his criminal intent. It is not affected by the appellant’s assertion that he did not know the victim’s age, as he failed to produce evidence thereof. Accordingly, the appellant’s contentions in this regard are inadmissible.