Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 79

Summary: - The prohibition in Article 11/10 of Law 61 of 2007 concerning Audiovisual Media. Its nature. Its purpose: the legislature’s concern to protect persons’ dignity, private lives and religious beliefs. The effect: punishment of the channel’s general manager, the preparer and presenter of the media material, and everyone responsible for broadcasting or rebroadcasting it. Article 13/1 of the aforementioned Law. Assessment of media material is a matter of fact, guided by the values and traditions prevailing in society, persons’ social positions and circumstances, and what constitutes personal and private matters, given the harm that may ensue. Its limit. - Criminal intent in the offence of infringing persons’ dignity or private lives through broadcasting or rebroadcasting. Its establishment. No specific intent is required. Its ascertainment is a matter of fact. The challenged judgment need not discuss it expressly and separately. Rule: The tenth paragraph of Article eleven of Law No. 61 of 2007 concerning Audiovisual Media prohibits broadcasting or rebroadcasting anything liable to infringe persons’ dignity, private lives or religious beliefs, reflecting the legislature’s concern to protect persons’ dignity, private lives and religious beliefs. Accordingly, the second item of the first paragraph of Article 13 of that Law punishes the channel’s general manager, the preparer and presenter of the media material, and everyone responsible for broadcasting it with a fine of not less than three thousand dinars if he contravenes this danger and contributes to broadcasting or rebroadcasting media material despite its infringement, violation or encroachment upon any of the foregoing matters. Whether the broadcast material contains anything liable to infringe those matters is for the trial judge to assess, according to the understanding of the facts of the case in which he has confidence and his assessment of the purposes and import of the signs, images, events, drawings, scenes, statements, phrases or words broadcast. He is guided by the values and traditions prevailing in society, persons’ social positions and circumstances, and what constitutes personal and private matters which every person seeks to retain to himself, conceal and not disclose to others, because discussing and presenting them to the public at large may cause moral or material harm, pain, or a sense of humiliation or shame among his family, relatives, associates and other members of society. The Court of Cassation exercises no review over the judge in all this, provided he has not erred in applying the law to the incident. It is established that criminal intent in the offence of infringing persons’ dignity or private lives through broadcasting via visual or audio media channels exists whenever the scenes, images, signs ........ etc. broadcast contain something liable to infringe dignity by impugning honour, harming reputation, esteem or social standing, diminishing a particular person’s worth, or infringing and violating persons’ private lives. The perpetrator’s knowledge is thereby established. The law does not require specific intent for this offence; it is constituted by general intent with its two elements—knowledge and will. Ascertaining the existence or absence of this intent from the facts and circumstances of the case is within the competence of the court of merits without further review, provided the implications of those facts and circumstances are not incompatible with that conclusion. The judgment need not discuss it expressly and separately, provided it states facts demonstrating it.