3 cases of exemption or reduction of sentence for drug crimes

The Federal Supreme Court confirmed that “there are three cases in which the accused may be exempted from punishment in drug cases”: The first: that the person informs the judicial or administrative authorities of what he knows before starting to commit the crime, that is, before the authorities become aware of it, and in this case the exemption is obligatory, and the second: It did not require the initiative to inform, but rather it was stipulated, in exchange for the permissibility of the exemption, that it be before the start of the investigation, and thirdly, the permissibility of reducing the sentence if the perpetrator facilitates the arrest of the perpetrator of the crime during the investigation or trial.

She explained that “in all obligatory and permissible cases of exemption, it is required that the authorities be able to arrest the perpetrators, which requires that the information be characterized by seriousness and sufficiency, and actually reach the arrest of the perpetrators. It is not enough for the perpetrator to issue against others a transmitted statement devoid of evidence, and its purpose is “Attacking accusations haphazardly in order to be exempt from punishment, which is far from the intent of the law.”

The Federal Supreme Court rejected an accused person’s appeal against a ruling that sentenced him to 10 years in prison and a fine of 20,000 dirhams, after he was convicted of converting his apartment into a place for drug use, rejecting his request for an exemption or reduction of the sentence, on the grounds that he informed the accused about the source of the drugs.

The Public Prosecution referred the accused to trial, and charged him with three charges: facilitating the abuse of psychotropic substances for three people, preparing his apartment as a place for the abuse of drugs and psychotropic substances, assaulting employees responsible for implementing the federal law regarding the control of narcotic substances and psychotropic substances, and resisting them while they were performing their job by shocking him. Police patrols and cars, demanding that he be punished.

The court of first instance ruled that the accused be imprisoned for five years and fined him 20,000 dirhams, for the first and second charges against him, of facilitating the use of narcotic substances, and preparing and setting up a place for the use of narcotic substances and psychotropic substances for association, and ordered his deportation from the state after carrying out the sentence and requiring him to pay the judicial fees, and acquitted him of the assault charge. On employees responsible for implementing the anti-drug law.

The Court of Appeal convicted the accused to 10 years in prison and fined him 20,000 dirhams for the first and second charges against him. The court ordered his deportation from the country after serving the sentence and confiscating the seized items. The ruling was not acceptable to the accused, so he appealed it before the Federal Supreme Court.

The Federal Supreme Court rejected the appeal, affirming the validity of the ruling, which was based on the accused’s subsequent confession of the charges against him during the Public Prosecution’s investigations.

The court confirmed that the accused’s statement that the seized items belonged to another person was a verbal statement devoid of evidence, and therefore this reporting did not result in the arrest of this person whom he claims, and therefore he has no right to plead for exemption or reduction of the penalty.

Law articles

Article 55 of Federal Law No. 14 of 1995, regarding combating narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, stipulates that “Any of the perpetrators who takes the initiative to inform Judicial or administrative authorities with what he knows about them before starting to commit the crime. The court may exempt from the penalty if the notification occurs after the crime is committed and before the investigation begins. The court may also reduce Punishment if the perpetrator facilitates the competent authorities during the investigation or trial to arrest one of the perpetrators of the crime.”