Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 73

Summary: - The offense of broadcasting audiovisual works in a public place without prior authorization from the Ministry of Information. Its commission and the existence of criminal intent and criminal liability therein. The basis thereof. This includes the channel's director general and the preparer or presenter of the audiovisual works. This includes everyone responsible for broadcasting them. Knowledge here is presumed. An example concerning the establishment of the liability of the director of a satellite channel. - The law does not require specific criminal intent in this offense. General criminal intent suffices. Inferring it is a matter of fact. The condition thereof. Rule: Decision No. 6 of 2008 concerning the issuance of the Executive Regulations of Law No. 61 of 2007 concerning Audiovisual Media, issued on 31/1/2008, stipulated in Article 14 thereof: "Artistic production establishments may not, without prior approval from the Ministry, undertake any of the following activities relating to audiovisual works: First: filming, recording, copying or converting them for the purpose of exploitation. Second: showing, broadcasting or transmitting them in a public place. Third: distributing, renting, circulating, selling or offering them for sale. Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the said Law punishes the channel's director general, the preparer and presenter of the media material, and everyone responsible for broadcasting it, with a fine of not less than 3 thousand dinars and not more than 10 thousand dinars if he violates this prohibition by contributing to broadcasting or rebroadcasting the media material without prior approval from the Ministry of Information. It is apparent from those provisions that the offense specified therein is committed if artistic production establishments broadcast audiovisual works in a public place without prior authorization from the Ministry of Information. Criminal intent therein exists whenever the materials broadcast were broadcast without prior approval from that Ministry. The knowledge of the offender, whether the channel's director general, the preparer or presenter of the audiovisual works, or anyone responsible for broadcasting them, is then presumed. The law does not require specific intent in this offense, but general intent suffices. Inferring the existence or absence of this intent from the facts and circumstances of the case falls within the jurisdiction of the trial court, without review, so long as the import of those facts and circumstances is not incompatible with the element of criminal intent or any other element of the offense, and so long as it has set out in its reasoning facts indicating its existence. That being so, and since the trial court—within the limits of its discretionary authority—concluded, relying on the evidence of guilt in which it had confidence, that on 22/8/2009 the appellant, in his capacity as director of satellite channel ........, carried out a satellite broadcast of an audiovisual work under the title of the series "..........." on that satellite channel, without authorization from the Ministry of Information as required by law, this establishes all the elements of the offense of which the judgment convicted him. Accordingly, his complaint in this regard is unsound.