Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 21

Summary: - The Kuwaiti judiciary has jurisdiction to hear offenses committed in the territory of the State of Kuwait and its dependencies whenever the material element occurs therein. Article 11 of the Penal Code. - The material element of an offense. Its nature. - Punishment for the two offenses of preparing and broadcasting a television program liable to impair the victim's dignity and damage his reputation. Its basis. The broadcast expressions occur, in all cases, within the State of Kuwait, in whose territory the victim is present, irrespective of where the acts of broadcasting took place. Jurisdiction therefore lies with the Kuwaiti judiciary. Effect: an objection that the Kuwaiti judiciary lacks jurisdiction on the basis that broadcasting took place outside the State of Kuwait is unfounded and manifestly invalid and warrants no response. Rule: The Kuwaiti judiciary has jurisdiction—pursuant to Article Eleven of the Penal Code and as settled in the case law of this court, the Court of Cassation—to hear offenses committed in the territory of the State of Kuwait and its dependencies whenever the material element of any such offense occurs therein. Since the material element of any offense consists of criminal conduct, a harmful result, and a causal relationship between them, the occurrence of any of these elements in the State of Kuwait gives its courts jurisdiction to try the perpetrator under the laws in force therein. The result that the legislature made the basis of punishment for the two offenses of preparing and broadcasting a television program liable to impair the victim's dignity and damage his reputation—charged against the appellant under the provisions of the charge—is that the broadcast expressions impair the victim's dignity and damage his reputation. This occurs—in all cases—within the State of Kuwait, in whose territory the victim is present, irrespective of where the acts of broadcasting took place. Accordingly, jurisdiction to try the appellant lies with the Kuwaiti judiciary pursuant to the aforementioned Article 11. The appellant's plea that the Kuwaiti judiciary lacks jurisdiction to try him, on the basis that broadcasting took place outside the State of Kuwait—as asserted in his grounds of appeal—is unfounded. No fault therefore attaches to the court for disregarding that plea as a manifestly invalid legal plea, far removed from the correct course, warranting no response in itself.