Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 9

Summary: - The challenged judgment’s establishment that the police investigator took cognisance of the incident because it constituted the misdemeanour of fleeing when ordered to stop by police officers and the offence of driving a car recklessly, carelessly and negligently. Its effect. The validity of the procedures referring the appellant to the Criminal Evidence Department to ascertain the nature of the substance under whose influence the appellant was driving, even if analysis subsequently revealed that it contained morphine derivatives and cannabis metabolites, which are felonies within the jurisdiction of the Public Prosecution. The reason: procedural acts are conducted on the basis of appearances and are not subsequently invalidated in deference to what the actual facts reveal; they are governed by their premises, not their results. Rule: Whereas it is apparent from the judgment’s findings regarding the facts of the case—as mentioned above—that the police investigator initially took cognisance of the incident because, on its face, it constituted the offence of attempting to flee when ordered to stop by police officers and the offence of driving a car recklessly, carelessly and negligently, thereby endangering its driver, passengers and others. Both are misdemeanours under Articles 33/2 and 44/1 of the aforementioned Traffic Law, in respect of which the police investigator has jurisdiction to investigate, dispose of the investigation and prosecute, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 9 of the aforementioned Criminal Procedure and Trials Law. Accordingly, the procedures undertaken by the police investigator in referring the appellant to the Criminal Evidence Department to ascertain the nature of the substances under whose influence the appellant was driving the car constitute a valid measure issued by a person competent to take it. This is not affected by what subsequently emerged upon examination of his urine sample, namely the discovery of derivatives of morphine and metabolites of cannabis, both narcotic substances whose consumption constitutes two felonies within the Public Prosecution’s jurisdiction to investigate, dispose of the investigation and prosecute, pursuant to the first paragraph of the said Article 9. The principle governing procedural acts is that they are conducted on the basis of appearances and are not subsequently invalidated in deference to what the actual facts disclose; they are governed by their premises, not their results. Since the challenged judgment followed this view when responding to the appellant’s plea in this regard, the latter’s criticism is unfounded.