Selected Legal Articles Published in Local Newspapers
Confession… Is Not the Master of Evidence!
By: Attorney Khalid Al-Shatti
Although the fundamental principle establishes that confession is the master of evidence, this rule is not absolute. A confession is considered authoritative only when the accused provides it with full awareness and free will. If the will is absent, the confession is null, and if the awareness is incomplete, the confession is likewise invalid. This is grounded in rulings by final and binding courts, which assert that for a confession to be valid and admissible as evidence, the accused must have made it voluntarily and consciously. A confession given under duress—such as threats to displace the family, kidnap a child, sexually assault a relative, inflict bodily harm, or violate the person’s honor—despite the accused’s will, is inadmissible. Similarly, a confession made under loss of awareness—such as being under the influence of drugs or alcohol that impair judgment, whether ingested voluntarily, involuntarily, or administered without knowledge—is invalid. Confession is a human act, and the rule is that an act is recognized only if it originates from will and awareness. Therefore, challenging the validity of a confession issued without free or conscious will, as in the aforementioned cases, constitutes a fundamental defense that can alter the outcome of the case. The court must explicitly investigate this, including consulting forensic experts, even if the accused has not requested it. The accused or their defense remaining silent on inviting expert testimony does not prevent the court from doing so. If the court ignores this and relies on the confession for conviction, the judgment is null. Similarly, if the court rejects this defense inadequately or unjustifiably, the ruling is also void. Therefore, it is incorrect to assert unconditionally that confession is the master of evidence. It is also important to note that if the accused confesses to committing a crime in a manner that contradicts the substantive facts and evidence of the case, such confession cannot be relied upon. It is established that a conviction cannot be valid solely based on a confession, whether oral or written, if it contradicts the truth. Hence, a confession must align with the evidence of the case. Finally, for a confession to be considered the master of evidence, it must be given with the accused’s full will and awareness. Additionally, it must explicitly detail the commission of the crime, and be clear and unambiguous so that no alternative interpretation is possible.
Three Elements for Establishing the Crime of Breach of Trust
By: Attorney Khalid Al-Shatti
Attorney Khalid Al-Shatti stated that legal doctrine defines the crime of breach of trust as the act of a person seizing movable property in the possession of another based on a contract specified by law, by violating the trust placed in them under the contract and converting their role from a custodian on behalf of the owner to claiming ownership for themselves.
He noted that Article (240/1) of the Penal Code stipulates the crime of breach of trust as follows:
"Whoever holds property owned by another based on a deposit, lease, or pledge, and is obligated to return it in kind or use it for a specific purpose for the benefit of its owner or another person, or to provide an account of such use, whether by legal provision or judicial ruling, and then appropriates it for themselves, disposes of it for their own account, or deliberately destroys it, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years, a fine not exceeding three thousand riyals, or by either of these penalties."
From this, it is understood that the crime of breach of trust presupposes that the movable property was delivered to the accused, transferring to them a limited possession based on one of the contracts specified by law or any other contract. These contracts imply trust from the person who delivered the property. The recipient holds it on behalf of the owner and is obligated to return it in kind or its equivalent in certain cases. However, if they exploit their possession and claim it as their own, denying the rightful owner, they betray the trust placed in them.
The material element of the crime of breach of trust consists of an act that demonstrates the accused’s intention to convert their role from trustee for the owner to usurper of ownership. The law describes such acts as embezzlement, misuse, or disposal.
Regarding the distinction between theft and breach of trust, Al-Shatti explained that while theft and fraud can be committed by anyone, breach of trust can only be committed by a person who is legally or contractually connected to the rightful owner of the property, as defined by law.
Accordingly, the crime of breach of trust falls under crimes of special capacity, and therefore, a person cannot be considered the perpetrator of breach of trust unless they have a prior relationship with the victim.
Al-Shatti stated that the crime of breach of trust consists of three elements:
1- The subject matter, which is the property delivered to the defendant in a manner that transfers incomplete possession based on one of the contracts. 2- A material element, consisting of one of the acts specified by the law. 3- A moral element, namely the criminal intent that presumes the defendant’s intention to treat the property as if he were its owner. The Egyptian Court of Cassation has ruled that a defendant may not be convicted of the crime of breach of trust unless the judge is convinced that the property was received under one of the trust contracts. The criterion for establishing the existence of such a contract, for the purpose of imposing criminal liability, is the factual reality of the situation. A person may not be criminally condemned— even based on his own oral or written confession— if such confession contradicts the truth.
Khalid Al-Shatti stated that the crime of breach of trust occurs only if the property was delivered under a trust contract, and the existence of such a contract is determined by the factual reality.
Drugs: A Temporary Pleasure, a Lasting Scandal
By: Attorney Khalid Al-Shatti
Human instinctual tendencies must be fully monitored and properly guided, and they should be satisfied at the appropriate time through organized educational programs designed by competent mentors. The tendency to seek personal amusement leads individuals to engage in leisure activities and spend their free time in ways that bring them joy and entertainment, allowing temporary liberation from the constraints of routine. They may spend several hours in activity and vitality without feeling any responsibility, all aimed at relieving the fatigue of daily work and momentarily distancing themselves from public morals and social traditions.
A person who pursues the fulfillment of their desires and pleasures under such critical circumstances, yielding to their psychological whims without limits to satisfy the instinct for amusement, is bound to face negative consequences and may encounter pains and calamities with serious repercussions. In this context, Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him, said: *"Whoever acts as they wish will meet with what is regrettable."*
Do not get involved with drugs… they bring nothing but calamities and misery. Unfortunately, some youth have taken the wrong paths in fulfilling their desire for entertainment and have deviated from the path of good and right. These individuals followed their personal whims in pursuit of fleeting pleasures, engaging during their free time in dangerous and harmful behaviors, committing major sins and disgraceful crimes under the guise of entertainment, and accustomed themselves to harmful habits, bringing unhappiness and suffering upon themselves.
Among the types of harmful entertainment is illusory amusement, which refers to drug use. Young people are often unaware of the extremely serious consequences of consuming these narcotic substances. A rational person would never involve themselves in great misfortunes, continuous pain, and lasting suffering for the sake of a fleeting pleasure. In this regard, Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him, said: "The sweetness of pleasure cannot exist alongside the bitterness of calamities."
The grave or prison… disgrace or scandal… the choice is yours. Many young people have lost their human dignity and threatened their moral virtues due to drug use, becoming debased and humiliated. Their hands have been stained with the shame of crime and theft, and many have ended their lives in extreme misery and suffering. Countless others have squandered their youth and lives for drugs, deprived of mental and physical health, suffering severe symptoms and psychological disorders, ultimately ending up in asylums where their dignity was destroyed and their years wasted. When you stop at a traffic light, look to the right: the fate of many is the Sulaibikhat Cemetery; look to the left: the Central Prison. If you, young brother, truly wish to remain safe from the traps of harmful addiction and avoid falling into the snares of drugs, you must beware of keeping company with addicts. You must also be vigilant over yourself so that the supposed pleasure of drugs does not overpower you. Always remember that this fleeting, temporary pleasure leaves behind a lasting scandal that accompanies you for life. Is such transient pleasure worth a scandal that will stay with you forever? Imam Ali, peace be upon him, said: “The shame of scandal spoils the sweetness of pleasure.”
Drugs tarnish your reputation, disgrace your family’s honor, drag you into a swamp of ruin, and destroy the foundations of your own happiness with your very own hands.
Insanity… A Bar to Criminal Responsibility
By: Attorney Khalid Al-Shatti
The law specifies the conditions that constitute bars to criminal responsibility, the foremost being insanity. Article 22 of the Penal Code provides: *“No one shall be held criminally liable who, at the time of committing the act, is incapable of understanding its nature or its unlawful character, or incapable of directing their will due to a mental illness, intellectual underdevelopment, or any other abnormal mental condition.”* All laws consider insanity and mental incapacity as factors that affect a person’s legal competence, negating it by impairing their ability to perceive or choose, and thus rendering them unfit to bear criminal responsibility. Exemption from criminal liability due to insanity or mental incapacity requires the fulfillment of three conditions: 1. The presence of insanity or mental incapacity in the actor. 2. That this condition leads to a loss of awareness (discernment) or the ability to choose. 3. That the loss of awareness or choice occurs concurrently with the commission of the crime. Insanity, mental illness, and intellectual disabilities are treated equivalently under the Penal Code, as long as they result in the loss of perception or will in the actor. In general, insanity encompasses any disorder affecting the mental faculties that deprives an individual of consciousness and understanding, including neurological conditions such as epilepsy. Regarding the loss of awareness and choice, the issue is not whether insanity exists in its narrow or broad definition, or its medical classification; rather, the decisive factor is whether insanity or mental incapacity results in a loss of awareness or choice at the time of the act. The assessment of the impact of a mental condition on perception or choice is left to the trial court, which may consult experts to determine whether the mental disorder leads to the loss of awareness or volition. The third condition, concerning the simultaneity of insanity or mental incapacity with the commission of the crime, is well established in jurisprudence. It is insufficient for criminal liability to simply prove that the actor is insane; the mental condition must have affected awareness and choice **at the precise moment the crime was committed**, as the law requires the presence of perception and volition at that time, both being essential conditions for criminal responsibility.
Therefore, in assessing the loss of awareness and choice for determining the accused’s criminal responsibility, what matters is their condition at the time the crime was committed.