December 18, 1986 session
The Counsellor is chaired by: Qais Al-Rai Attia, Vice President of the Court, and the membership of the Advisers: Mohamed Najib Saleh and Awad Jado (the two Vice-Presidents of the Court), Salah Attia and Abdel Latif Abu El- Nile.
--------
(209)
Appeal No. 4301 of Judicial Year 56
(1) The law of its “interpretation” “repealed”. Censorship of works. The rule of “causing it. Causing is defective.”".
Displaying movie tapes or magic lantern paintings or the like in a public place without a license. illegal. basis of it?.
It is not legal to refer to the general law in what is included in a special law. limit it?.
Subsequent general legislation. Does not implicitly supersede previous special legislation.
Example.
(2) Overturning "Cases of Appeal. Error in Application of the Law". The Court of Cassation "its authority"".
When can the Court of Cassation correct the ruling and the judiciary in accordance with the law?
(3) Overturning the effect of appeal".
Extension of the impact of the appeal to non-appellant. police?
------------
1 - As the third paragraph of Article Two of Law No. 430 of 1955 regulating censorship of cinematic tapes stipulates that “it is not permissible, without a license from the Ministry of National Guidance, to display cinematic tapes, magic lantern paintings, or the like in a public place.” Commenting on this article, the explanatory memorandum stated that “the licensee may not make any modification… or addition to the licensed work, and accordingly the copying… or display… shall be done in the case approved by the authority based on censorship".
2 - Since the defect in the contested judgment was limited to a mistake in the application of the law with regard to the incident as it became established in the judgment, it is necessary, according to the original rule stipulated in Article 39 of Law No. 57 of 1959 regarding cases and procedures for appeal before the Court of Cassation, that the court rule in the matter. Appeal, correcting the error, and ruling in accordance with the law.
3 - If the aspect of the appeal relates to the other convict.... who did not appeal against the judgment and in view of the unity of the incident and the proper course of justice, the contested judgment must be set aside for the appellant and the other convict.
THE FACTS
The Public Prosecution accused the appellant - and another - of: (The first): He added a sex scene (a completely naked woman) in the Indian movie (Bokan Joker) and allowed the other accused to show it to the public, as indicated in the minutes, and requested his punishment in Article 178/1, 2 of the law Penalties. And the Misdemeanors Court….. ruled in his presence, pursuant to the accusation article, that each of the accused be imprisoned for one year with hard labor, a fine of one hundred pounds each, and confiscation. The convicts appealed and the Court of First Instance - with an appellate body - ruled in their presence to accept the appeal in form and in the matter to amend the appealed judgment and fine each of the accused one hundred pounds, and the judiciary confirmed the confiscation.
The professor/……the lawyer on behalf of the professor/…the lawyer on behalf of the first convict appealed this ruling by way of cassation….etc..
COURT
In terms of what the appellant condemns to the contested judgment is that if he convicts him of the crime of showing a sexual scene to the public, he has erred in applying the law, because the judgment concluded in its reasons that the appellant did not add the sexual scene to the film and that the censorship of artistic works authorized its comprehensive presentation And that the issuance of such a statement without notes makes the act legal and free from punishment in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 430 of 1955 regulating censorship of cinematic tapes, which was necessary to acquit the appellant pursuant to Article 304/1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the court convicted and punished him in accordance with Article 178 Penalties, its ruling is flawed, and it must be rescinded.
And since the Public Prosecution had instituted a criminal case against the appellant because he had added a sex scene (a completely naked woman) to the Indian film and allowed the second defendant to show it to the public, and that he and the second defendant had shown the aforementioned sex scene to the audience and demanded that they be punished with the articles of accusation, but the ruling The trial court supporting its reasons for the contested judgment concluded in its reasons that the appellant did not add the sexual scene to the film and that the censorship of artistic works authorized its comprehensive presentation of this scene and that the incident fell outside the scope of the provisions of Law No. 430 of 1955 and became punishable under Article 178 penalties and ended up punishing The appellant and the other convicted person in accordance with the provisions of this Article. Since that was the case, and the third paragraph of Article Two of Law No. 430 of 1955 regulating the censorship of cinematic tapes stipulated that: The former, but the special legislation remains in place. Since that was the case, and the defect in the contested judgment was limited to a mistake in applying the law with regard to the incident as it became established in the judgment, it is necessary, according to the original rule stipulated in Article 39 of Law No. 57 of 1959 regarding cases and procedures for appeal before the Court of Cassation, that the court rule In the appeal, the error is corrected and it is judged according to the law, and if this aspect of the appeal relates to the other convict..... who did not appeal the judgment and in view of the unity of the incident and the proper course of justice, the appealed judgment must be set aside for the appellant and the other convict and to acquit them of what was attributed to them.
