Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 51

Summary: - The court has authority to assess the accused's statements and may penetrate to their truth without accepting their outward meaning, accepting what it trusts and rejecting the rest. - An admission need not cover the incident in all its details. What suffices for this. - The challenged judgment's reliance on the appellant's admission that he issued the check forming the subject of the obligation in favor of the victim, rejecting his account that the check was issued as security because of commercial dealings between them, on the basis of the remaining prosecution evidence. Within the trial judge's authority. Calling the admission a confession does not vitiate it. Condition for this. Rule: It is established that the court has authority to assess the accused's statements and may penetrate to their truth without accepting their outward meaning, accepting what it trusts to be true and rejecting the rest without being obliged to explain why. An admission need not cover the incident in all its details; it suffices that it cover facts from which, together with the remaining elements of the case and through all rational and inferential possibilities, the court infers that the perpetrator committed the offense. The judgment relied on the appellant's admission that he issued the check forming the subject of the charge in favor of the victim company, rejecting his account that the check was issued as security because of commercial dealings between them, relying in this respect on the remaining prosecution evidence in the case. This falls within the trial judge's authority. Calling that admission a confession does not vitiate the judgment, so long as it did not attach to it alone the legal effect of a confession. His criticism of the judgment in this respect therefore has no basis.