Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 68

Summary: - Ordering placement in a treatment institution. Discretionary for the trial court. - The court of first instance’s disregard of the appellant’s request to be placed in a treatment institution because he had previously been placed in an institution for treatment. It does not vitiate the challenged judgment. The appellate court’s decision to place the appellant pending final determination of the case. It is no more than a preparatory decision that creates no rights for the litigants necessarily requiring its implementation to safeguard those rights or obliging the court to decide the case in a particular manner. Rule: It is established in law, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 33 of Law No. 74 of 1983 concerning the Control of Narcotics and the Regulation of Their Use and Trafficking Therein, and the second paragraph of Article 39 of Law No. 48 of 1987 concerning the Control of Psychotropic Substances and the Regulation of Their Use and Trafficking Therein, that ordering the placement of a person proven to be addicted to narcotic use or dependent on the use of psychotropic substances in one of the treatment institutions designated by the competent minister for treatment is discretionary for the court. The jurisprudence of this Court—the Court of Cassation—has established that the imposition of a penalty in the judgment signifies that the court did not consider it appropriate to order placement of the accused and suffices to reject his defense in this respect. That being so, the first-instance judgment, upheld on its grounds by the challenged judgment, addressed the appellant’s request in this respect and rejected it, stating: “The court disregards the accused’s request to place him in a treatment institution for addiction treatment because his placement was previously ordered in approximately eight cases of possession of narcotics with intent to use, without his complying with treatment, and pursuant to the final paragraph of Article 39 of Law No. 74 of 1983 concerning the Control of Narcotics and the Regulation of Their Use and Trafficking Therein, which provides that ‘A person whose placement therein has previously been ordered twice, or for whom at least two years have not elapsed since his discharge therefrom, may not be placed in the institution.’” It is established from the papers that the judgment’s statement that the appellant had previously been placed in a treatment institution has a proper basis in the papers, and the appellant did not dispute this. Accordingly, the challenged judgment’s conclusion rejecting the appellant’s request in this respect accords with the correct application of the law, and the complaint against it in this respect is unsound. Nor is the judgment subsequently vitiated by the fact that the appellate court had previously decided, at the hearing of 12/6/2013, to place the appellant in a treatment institution for addiction treatment pending final determination of the case. It is established that a decision taken by the court of its own motion—as in the present case—for the preparation of the case and the gathering of evidence therein is no more than a preparatory decision that creates no rights for the litigants necessarily requiring its implementation to safeguard those rights or obliging the court to decide the case in a particular manner.