Court clears police colonel for use of force in national holiday case
The Misdemeanor Court of Cassation ruled that state employees may act against typical prohibitions in specific circumstances for public interest and found the appellant’s claim of legal error flawed due to ignoring permissibility grounds.
• According to Article 37 of the Penal Code No. 16 of 1960, as amended, which states, “No crime is committed if the act is performed by a public employee during the exercise of his jurisdiction using authority determined by law, or in implementation of a lawful order,” the use of necessary force by the officer was justified.
In a notable ruling, the Misdemeanor Court of Cassation upheld that security personnel are permitted to use force to prevent crimes, overturning a two-month prison sentence for a police colonel and acquitting him of charges related to cruelty during national holiday celebrations, according to Al Jarida newspaper.
The court, led by Counselor Mohammed Al-Khalif and supported by advisers Adnan Al-Jasser, Mubarak Al-Rifai, Abdullah Al-Jumal, and Ahmed Al-Duwaikh, explained that the legislator permits certain state employees to perform acts typically prohibited under specific circumstances to serve the public interest. The court noted that the appellant’s argument, which claimed an error in applying the law by convicting him for using cruelty, was flawed because it did not address the grounds for permissibility.
The appeal ruling, which supplemented the grounds of the misdemeanor court, failed to address the defendant’s defense regarding a reason for permissibility that would justify his actions as a colonel in the Ministry of Interior. The defendant had arrested the first accused for violating regulations during national holiday celebrations, endangering public safety, refusing to comply with orders to accompany the security point, resisting arrest, and fleeing the scene.
The court stated that the defendant was legally obligated to perform his duties and, therefore, was not held responsible for his actions. Consequently, his case transitioned from criminalization to permissibility.
The Misdemeanor Discrimination Department noted that it is sufficient for the trial court to assess the evidence related to the charge in determining innocence.
The court’s judgment must include evidence showing that it examined the case, considered its circumstances, and evaluated the evidence for both the prosecution and the defense. The court is not required to respond to every piece of evidence but must base its judgment on reasons that justify its conclusions.
The court highlighted that, based on the investigations, the defendant, in his role as an officer in the Ministry of Interior on February 25, 2022, was responsible for maintaining security and safety during national holiday celebrations. This included addressing prohibited acts, such as throwing water balloons at pedestrians and vehicles, which disrupted traffic, caused public dissatisfaction, and endangered safety.
The court continued, stating that the first accused had committed some prohibited acts, as observed by witnesses who shouted at him to stop. Despite being urged multiple times by the police officer in charge of maintaining security, the first accused ignored the instructions and continued his actions. The officer then attempted to arrest him, which led to a struggle as the first accused resisted, ultimately resulting in the officer using necessary force to control him, as required by law.
The court noted that this incident caused injury to the first accused, as shown in the forensic medical report, and that the first accused fled the scene with help from others. The investigating authority failed to clarify the circumstances of the incident or identify the perpetrators.
According to Article 37 of the Penal Code No. 16 of 1960, as amended, which states, “No crime is committed if the act is performed by a public employee during the exercise of his jurisdiction using authority determined by law, or in implementation of a lawful order,” the use of necessary force by the officer was justified.
The court emphasized that the defendant was legally obliged to maintain safety and protect property, and while the first accused sustained injuries, this did not negate the officer’s lawful actions. Since the officer acted within the bounds of his authority and in accordance with Articles 28 and 37 of the Penal Code, the appeal judgment that convicted him was incorrect. Thus, the court ruled to overturn the previous judgment and acquit the officer.
