Decision No. 8 of 2024: The Court of Cassation must supervise trial judges' discretion in assessing and reducing penalties in public fund crimes

The latest judgment of the General Authority of the Cassation Court in Dubai has mandated that the court must supervise trial judges' discretion in assessing and reducing penalties in public fund crimes.

The Technical Office of the Cassation Court submitted a memorandum to the President of the Court to reconsider the authority of the Cassation Court in supervising the trial judge's discretion in assessing and reducing sentences in public fund crimes according to the following statement:

When the legislator imposes a specific penalty for a crime, they often stipulate a maximum and minimum limit for that penalty. Sometimes, they specify two different penalties, such as imprisonment and a fine for the same crime, leaving the judge discretionary power to choose the appropriate extent of the penalty within these limits. This is to allow the judge to individualise the punishment in a manner that suits the offender's personality and social circumstances in addition to the circumstances and details of the incident under trial.

The Cassation Court has refrained from commenting on judges’ discretion in assessing and reducing penalties, considering that this power falls solely within the jurisdiction of the trial judge.

However, it is neither reasonable nor logical for the assessment and reduction of penalties to remain outside the supervision of the Cassation Court, to ensure that the imposed penalty aligns with the aims and objectives intended by the law. Thus, it is necessary for the Cassation Court to extend its supervision to the trial court's assessment of the penalty and the justification for reducing it without the need to overturn the contested judgment and set a hearing for the case.

Therefore, the General Authority urges the Cassation Court chambers, when exercising their supervision over the assessment of penalties or their reduction, to clarify the justifications for this to ensure consistency in rulings that the trial judge can refer to. For example, in public fund crimes, penalty reduction should be limited to justifications such as the defendant's return of the money subject of the crime in public fund cases and others. This would open the way for trial judges to provide clearer reasoning for their judgments and their choice of the imposed penalty.

Consequently, the General Authority of the Cassation Court decided:

1. The criminal chambers in cases related to public funds and other crimes should not reduce the penalty unless there is a valid justification, such as the return of the money subject to the crime in public fund cases.
2. The Cassation Court must supervise the trial judge in assessing the primary and supplementary criminal penalties and their reduction or modification by overturning the judgment concerning the penalty alone without the need for referral.