قوة الحكم الجزائي البات الصادر في واقعة قبل تفاقم نتيجتها أمام القضاء الجزائي : دراسة مقارنة بين التشريعين الأردني و الإماراتي

الملخص EN

This study relates to an important principle of criminal justice, i.e.

the principle of “Double Jeopardy: the defendant may not be tried twice for the same crime.” This principle is expressly provided in Article (58/1) of the Jordanian Criminal Law, and impliedly inferred from Article (268) of the UAE Criminal Procedures, law under the title “The Potency of Definitive Sentences.” Despite the acknowledgement of the above principle and its close connection to the potency of definitive criminal sentences, a person could be pursued for a criminal act that caused a certain consequence, yet after the final sentence of conviction for that act, its consequence becomes aggravated into a more severe consequence.

An example of this situation is when a person is tried for having committed a simple offense that caused a minor injury to a victim, and after a final sentence of conviction is passed, the minor injury becomes aggravated, resulting in the permanent disability of the victim, hence becoming a felony.

The Jordanian legislator has taken such situations into account, in Article (58/2), by requiring the making of a new pursuit and prosecution.

Yet, the UAE legislator has not provided for such exceptional cases.

This furnishes the ground for this study which attempts to offer solutions to this issue through methodical analytisis and comparison between the Jordanian and UAE legislations.

Hence, this study aims at answering the following questions: What is the potency of definitive criminal sentences passed prior to the aggravation of the consequences of the crime for which the defendant was convicted? Moreover, what is meant by the aggravation of the consequences of the crime?