He Did It. The Court Proved It. Yet He Was Not Criminally Liable

After years spent inside Kuwait’s criminal courtrooms, there is one question I am asked more than almost any other: If someone commits a crime and the evidence proves it, why wouldn’t they be punished?

For many people, justice appears straightforward. An act is committed, the facts are established, guilt is proven, and punishment follows. Yet some of the most important principles of criminal law emerge from cases where the answer is not nearly as simple as it first appears.

A recent case before the Kuwaiti courts provides a powerful example.

The incident involved a man who drove toward the Abdali border crossing, broke through a security barrier, ignored repeated instructions to stop, attempted to flee, and ultimately collided with a police patrol vehicle during efforts to intercept him. The allegations were serious. The location was sensitive. The conduct posed obvious risks to public safety and to law enforcement officers carrying out their duties.

At first glance, many would assume that the legal outcome was inevitable.

The incident had occurred. Witnesses were present. Official reports documented the events. Technical evidence supported the prosecution’s case. From a factual standpoint, the circumstances appeared clear.

Yet criminal courts are not concerned only with determining whether an event took place. They must also determine whether the person who committed the act possessed the legal capacity required to be held criminally responsible for it.

That distinction became the defining issue in this case.

As the proceedings unfolded, the court examined medical evidence indicating that the accused suffered from a serious mental illness affecting his awareness, perception, and ability to understand the nature and consequences of his actions at the time of the incident. The court carefully reviewed the medical findings alongside the remaining evidence before reaching its conclusion.

The judgment was both legally significant and publicly instructive.

The court found that the acts themselves had occurred. The facts were established. The conduct was proven.

However, the court also found that criminal responsibility could not be established because the accused lacked the degree of awareness and understanding required by law at the time of the events. As a result, the court ruled that he was not criminally liable. The judgment later became final after no appeal was filed.

To many outside the legal profession, such a result may seem surprising. Some may even ask how a person can commit an act of this nature and yet avoid criminal punishment.

The answer lies in one of the most fundamental principles of criminal justice.

A criminal act alone is not enough.

Criminal liability requires both the act itself and the existence of criminal responsibility. The law requires that a person possess sufficient awareness, understanding, and mental capacity to appreciate the nature of what he is doing and the consequences that may follow. When that capacity is absent because of a serious mental disorder, the legal analysis changes entirely.

This principle is neither a loophole nor an act of leniency. It is a cornerstone of justice recognized by modern legal systems throughout the world. Courts do not accept such claims lightly. Medical reports are scrutinized, expert evaluations are examined, and judges carefully assess all available evidence before reaching a conclusion that criminal responsibility is absent.

The threshold is intentionally high because the consequences are profound.

Throughout my legal career, I have often found that the most challenging cases are not those involving disputed facts, but those involving the complex intersection of law, medicine, psychology, and human behavior. These are the cases that remind us that justice cannot be reduced to a simple equation of act and punishment.

The law exists not merely to punish wrongdoing, but to assign responsibility where responsibility truly exists. A fair legal system must protect society, but it must also ensure that punishment is imposed only when the legal conditions for criminal liability have been satisfied.

The Abdali checkpoint case serves as an important reminder of that balance. It illustrates a legal truth that deserves wider public understanding: proving that an event occurred is not the same as proving criminal responsibility for that event. While the two often exist together, they are not always identical.

In every criminal courtroom, two questions must ultimately be answered. The first is whether the act occurred. The second is whether the person who committed it possessed the awareness and understanding required by law. The first determines the facts. The second determines justice.

Dr. Fawaz Khaled Alkhateeb
Managing Partner, Taher Group Law Firm
[email protected]