Is it permissible for the Public Prosecutor to

submit new evidence at the trial stage?

▪ ▪

Investigations in criminal offences are conducted in accordance with

specified procedures that are clearly set out in the Criminal Procedural Law

in the form of described and specific forms; these must be adhered to

during every procedure of an investigation in any criminal case. The Law

has vested the powers relating to the detection of offenses, as well as the

tracing of their perpetrators in the Public Prosecutors.

The Law has also regulated the exercise of such powers by setting out the

procedural standards by which the Public Prosecutor must abide when

conducting any investigation within the authorities granted to him. These

procedural standards must be followed during all the stages of the

investigation proceedings; starting with the point at which it is suspected

that an offense has been committed, through the various stages of the

investigation, the collection of evidence, the presentation of the

documents, and to the suspect’s interrogation.

Once the Public Prosecutor has completed his investigation proceedings,

he must conclude this stage by issuing a decision on it. The Public

Prosecutor issues his decision which may be to hold the documents, prevent

a trial, or to charge the defendant.

Once such a decision is examined by the Attorney General, then the role

of the Public Prosecutor in relation to the investigatory stage is completed

and the Public Prosecutor is prohibited from taking any new investigatory

actions including the collection of evidence. This is subject to an exception

where the Public Prosecutor’s issued decision had been to prevent a trial

on the grounds of insufficiency of evidence; it is only in such circumstances

that the Public Prosecutor is authorized to initiate new investigatory actions

where new evidence arises.

April

1st,

2013

Is it permissible for the Public Prosecutor to submit new evidence at the trial stage? Page 2

In the ‘Phosphate Case’, the Public Prosecutor finalized the investigation by

issuing an ‘Indictment Decision’ recommending that the defendant be

charged. After that, the Attorney General issued a decision to prosecute.

Thereafter, the case was transferred to the court for trial along with a Bill of

Indictment and a list of the prosecution’s witnesses as required by the Law.

It is important to note that the Public Prosecutor has requested that he be

granted time in order to submit new evidence to the court; this was done

after the court had already heard most of the witnesses included in the

prosecution’s witness list.

Such a request is considered a violation of the procedural rules that govern

criminal proceedings due to the fact that the Public Prosecutor had

already concluded the investigation proceedings and had transferred the

case to the competent court. In other words, by concluding the

investigation proceedings, the case is no longer under the authority of the

Public Prosecutor and therefore he does not have the powers to collect

any further evidence.

As there is no longer an ongoing investigation, the question arises as to on

what basis has the Public Prosecutor collected new evidence when there

is no investigatory case under his authority!

The proper application of the procedural rules does not allow the Public

Prosecutor to submit new evidence during the trial stage; this action not

only violates the procedural rules but also constitutes a contradiction with

the decisions already issued by the Public Prosecutor and the Attorney

General on the case. Taking into consideration the fact that the Law

requires these decisions to illustrate the act committed by the defendant,

the date of its commission, its legal description, the evidence proving that

the act has been committed, the legal clauses on which the decision has

been based and the reasoning for the decision.

Is it permissible for the Public Prosecutor to submit new evidence at the trial stage? Page 3

It is vital to note that the facts underlying the offense must be determined

from the evidence which the Public Prosecutor has collected during the

investigation stage, this evidence must be sufficient to refer the defendant

to the court for trial. The issue then becomes about what is to happen to

those facts after the Public Prosecutor states that he has important new

evidence which had not been considered prior to the issuance of his

decision and which were not relied upon in the reasoning used by the

Public Prosecutor in charging the defendant.

The regulation of the investigation procedures using specific rules that must

be adhered to when conducting any investigatory action is considered

one of the most important guarantees of a fair trial in criminal proceedings,

this is especially vital given that the investigation proceedings, by their very

nature, intervene with or restrict the liberty of suspects.

One of the most important guarantees to a fair trial is to comply with the

constitutional and legal rule which states that ‘the accused is innocent until

proven guilty’; the law has designed the investigation procedures in such a

way so as to uphold this rule by providing that the burden of proof is placed

on the Public Prosecution to provide conclusive evidence attesting to the

fact that that the defendant has actually committed an offense prohibited

by law. The Public Prosecution is bound to provide legitimate evidence (i.e.

evidence obtained in the manner prescribed by the Law).

Further, the collection of evidence must be done within the framework of

the proper investigation proceedings during an ongoing case where the

investigation has not been completed; the Public Prosecutor must rely on

such evidence when issuing his decision with regards to the defendant. Any

evidence obtained in a non-legitimate manner will not be considered as

evidence in rebutting the presumption of innocence.

Is it permissible for the Public Prosecutor to submit new evidence at the trial stage? Page 4

Additionally, any such non-legitimate evidence casts doubt over the

validity of the charges issued and the indictment decision, both of which

were fundamental reasons for the case being brought in front of the

competent court. If evidence constitutes the grounds on which the Bill of

Indictment and the Indictment decision are issued, then what was the

evidence on which the existing Bill of Indictment and the indictment

decision were issued in this case? Also, how will those decisions be affected

in light of the new evidence which the Public Prosecutor purports to

present?

It is important to recall that the trial proceedings require that evidence for

the prosecution be heard first, after which the court decides whether or not

there is a case against the accused. As such it can be inferred that the

assessment made by the court on the criminal case is based, during this

initial stage, on the examination and inspection of the evidence given by

the prosecution.

If the court finds this evidence not sufficient to prove that there is a case

against the accused and not sufficient to rebut the presumption of

innocence, then the court will issue a decision of ‘Not Guilty’ or ‘Not

Responsible’ as the case may be. However, where the court finds the

prosecuting evidence to be sufficient, it will allow the accused the

opportunity to defend himself; this consists of the rebuttal and disproval of

the evidence presented by the prosecutors.

It is definitively shown by the above that the court’s decision on whether or

not there is a sufficient case against the accused is based on the evidence

relied upon in issuing the Bill of Indictment and the Indictment Decision. This

affirms that the prevailing procedural rules in Jordan do not include any

provisions allowing the Public Prosecutor to submit new evidence after the

case has been transferred to the competent court for trial.