Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 29

Summary: - The legislature required that, for a medical prescription to have the effect of permitting possession and consumption of psychotropic substances, it must be issued by a physician licensed to practise medicine in the State of Kuwait. The challenged judgment’s rejection of the appellant’s plea that a ground of justification applied to him because of his illness and his possession of a medical prescription issued by a physician, on the basis that it was issued by a physician who was not proven to be licensed to practise medicine in Kuwait. Correct. Rule: Whereas the challenged judgment addressed the appellant’s plea that a ground of justification applied to him because of his illness, that he consumed the psychotropic substance for treatment, and that he possessed a medical prescription from a physician, and rejected it on the basis that the legislature required that, for a medical prescription to have the effect of permitting possession and consumption of psychotropic substances, it must be issued by a physician licensed to practise medicine in the State of Kuwait by means of a special medical prescription, pursuant to Article 22 of Law No. 48 of 1987 concerning Psychotropic Substances and the Regulation of Their Use and Trade. The medical prescription submitted by the accused, however, was issued by an Egyptian physician practising in the Arab Republic of Egypt, and it was not established that he was licensed to practise medicine in Kuwait. When the legislature permitted persons arriving in the country to bring in preparations containing the psychotropic substances specified in Schedules 2, 3 and 4, it required that this be within the quantity necessary for their treatment for no more than 1 month and that they submit medical reports or prescriptions establishing this, and the General Administration of Customs does not release from the entities designated by the Minister, as prescribed by Article 30 of the same Law. The quantity of psychotropic pills seized belonging to the appellant amounted to 496 tablets, exceeding what a person arriving in the State from abroad is permitted to bring in, because it exceeds the need for therapeutic use for 1 month and exceeds the dose prescribed for the appellant under the medical prescription he submitted. Since the challenged judgment concluded by rejecting the plea raised by the appellant in this regard in accordance with the foregoing, it correctly applied the law, and the appellant’s argument in this regard is unsound.