Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 75

Summary: - The trial court at both levels concluded, within its discretionary authority, that the programme presented by the second appellant and prepared and directed by the third appellant included attacks upon, ridicule of, and disparagement of the virtuous Companions, and attributed to a public official untrue statements and acts involving personal disparagement and insult. The second and third appellants’ contention that the words forming the subject of the charge were uttered by the first appellant—the programme’s guest—spontaneously, and that she could not prevent him because it was on air, is unsound. The reason: technical means should have been adopted to stop broadcasting the programme when the guest began uttering those expressions so that they would not reach the public. Rule: The trial court at both levels correctly concluded—within its discretionary authority, with sound logic and acceptable reasoning—that the programme presented by the second appellant and prepared and directed by the third appellant on ...... television channel under the name Elections 2009, which was broadcast on that channel, included attacks upon, ridicule of, and disparagement of the virtuous Companions, “may Allah be pleased with them.” It also attributed to the Minister of Amiri Diwan Affairs untrue statements and acts involving personal disparagement and insult, taking the broadcast material beyond the limits of permissible artistic media work into material whose broadcast is prohibited. This establishes against the second and third appellants the elements of the two crimes of which they were convicted, including criminal intent—as defined by law. What the challenged judgment stated concerning them and in response to their defence in this regard justified rejecting that defence. This is not affected by the appellants’ contention that the expressions and words forming the subject of the charge came spontaneously from the first appellant, who was a guest on the programme, and that they could not prevent him because it was on air. They should have adopted technical means to stop broadcasting the programme when the guest began uttering those expressions so that they would not reach the public. Accordingly, all that the two appellants raise in their ground of appeal—besides being unsound—is merely factual argument concerning the trial court’s authority to assess the evidence in the case, understand its facts, and derive its conviction therefrom, matters exclusively within its competence. Its conviction in that regard may not be overridden, nor may the matter be raised again before the Court of Cassation.