KUWAIT CITY, Nov 16: Kuwait has issued Decree Law No. 157 of 2025, introducing key amendments to the Criminal Procedures and Trials Law (Law No. 17 of 1960), aimed at accelerating the handling of minor criminal cases and easing the burden on the judiciary.

According to the explanatory memorandum published in the latest edition of the official gazette, Kuwait Alyoum (Official Government Gazette), the amendments expand the use of the “penal order” system — a simplified legal mechanism that allows courts to issue decisions in certain minor cases without a full investigation or courtroom hearings. The memorandum described the system as a tool designed to expedite judicial processes, conserve court resources, and prevent delays that could lead to cases lapsing under the statute of limitations.

The document noted that the penal-order mechanism, previously established in Articles 148 and 149 of the Criminal Procedures Law, aligns Kuwait’s judicial procedures with those used in many comparative legal systems. It enables judges to issue a fine — up to a maximum of KD 500 — based solely on the evidentiary documents submitted, without requiring the accused to appear or the court to follow standard trial protocols.

Under the amended Article 148, the Public Prosecution may request the competent court to issue a penal order in misdemeanor cases punishable by up to one year in prison, a fine of up to KD 500, or both. The request must include all supporting documents and may now be submitted electronically through the court’s online platform.

The court may decide on the matter in the absence of the accused, relying entirely on the investigation reports and case documents. It is not permitted to impose any penalty other than a fine not exceeding KD 500.

The decree also replaces Article 149 with a new provision regulating when courts may reject penal-order requests. The court must decline summary adjudication if it deems a full trial necessary or if the accused appears in person or through a representative. In such cases, the prosecution must pursue the case through regular trial procedures.

If the court accepts the summary process and issues a penal order, the decision carries the same legal weight as a default judgment, including identical timelines and mechanisms for appeal. These deadlines start from the date the accused is properly notified, using procedures identical to those applied in serving default judgments.

The amendment also gives full legal validity to electronically signed penal orders and digital case documents, provided they comply with the Electronic Transactions Law and its executive regulations.

The memorandum explained that expressly requiring courts to reject penal-order requests when the accused appears reinforces defendants’ rights, ensuring they cannot be sentenced in absentia when they are willing to appear before the court. A judge’s refusal to issue a penal order returns full authority over the case to the prosecution, which may request such an order only once more; any further attempts are treated as an appeal against the refusal.

The decree introduces a new Article (95 bis) to establish clear procedures for handling illegal seizures — items confiscated that are themselves unlawful to possess. The provision determines the authority responsible for ordering their destruction when they are no longer required for investigation or for adjudicating the case, even before a final judgment is issued.

The memorandum stated that existing law regulates the handling of lawfully obtained evidence but lacks provisions addressing storage, duration, or disposal of illegal items, making the new article essential for closing this legal gap.