Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 65

Summary: - A decision closing the investigation. It entails suspension of proceedings and suspension of the investigation until new evidence emerges requiring the investigation to be reopened and completed. The essence of new evidence is that the investigator encounters it for the first time after the investigation has been closed. Article 103 of the Criminal Procedure and Trials Law. Example concerning inquiries leading to identification of the perpetrator after the investigation was closed because he was unknown, thereby restoring the Public Prosecution’s right to bring criminal proceedings against the offender. Rule: Article 103 of the Criminal Procedure and Trials Law provides that a decision closing the investigation entails suspension of proceedings and suspension of the investigation until new evidence emerges requiring the investigation to be reopened and completed, and that the essence of new evidence is that the investigator encounters it for the first time after the decision to close the investigation. That being so, it is established from the papers that on 1/4/2013 the Public Prosecution decided provisionally to close the investigation because the perpetrator was unknown and instructed the police to continue searching and making inquiries for the perpetrator. Through inquiries into the incident, it identified the perpetrator as the appellant. This constitutes new evidence that had not been presented to the Public Prosecution when it issued its previous order, permitting it to resume the investigation and restoring its right to bring criminal proceedings against the offender on the basis of the evidence that emerged before it. Accordingly, what the appellant raises in this respect is unsound.