Al Madani & Co. Law Firm & Legal Consultants

A Success Story: Triumph of Justice in Defending the Truth

In the world of law, where facts intertwine and testimonies clash, the role of a lawyer in seeking the truth and defending justice shines through. This story recounts one of our firm’s most significant successes in defending our client, the defendant, in a case charged with emotions and conflicting accusations.

Background

Our client, Ms. A, the defendant, held a prestigious position at an international organization, earning the respect and admiration of her colleagues. One day, Ms. A decided to host a private celebration at her workplace, inviting her colleagues to partake in this joyous occasion. However, what began as an innocent celebration quickly escalated into a complicated legal dispute.

The Beginning of the Dispute

On May 12, 2017, the plaintiff, Ms. B, a colleague of our client, declined the invitation to attend the celebration, citing her personal traditions, customs, and other personal reasons. This refusal sparked a disagreement between the two colleagues, culminating in Ms. B filing a complaint alleging that she had been physically assaulted by our client.

Legal Consequences

Ms. B submitted a complaint to the authorities, and the incident was recorded at the local security center. Her allegations included claims of being struck and sustaining injuries, supported by a medical report. On the other hand, our client, Ms. A, denied all charges, asserting that no physical altercation took place and that the incident was merely a verbal argument.

Building the Defense

When we took on the case, we knew the task ahead would not be easy. The plaintiff had presented her testimony to the security center and later provided another in court. However, there was a clear contradiction between the two statements. In her statement to the security center, Ms. B claimed she was struck inside the manager’s office, while in court, she said she was pushed and removed from the office. This inconsistency became the cornerstone of our strong defense for Ms. A.

Our legal team meticulously analyzed all the submitted testimonies and evidence. We interviewed witnesses presented by Ms. A and found that their testimonies were hearsay; none of them had directly witnessed the incident. The witnesses either heard the verbal dispute between Ms. A and Ms. B or were informed by Ms. B that she had been assaulted. However, no one had seen the alleged physical assault.

Analyzing the Medical Report

The initial medical report presented by Ms. B indicated scratches on her shoulders, but there was no clear evidence linking these injuries to our client. We argued in court that the medical report did not conclusively prove that Ms. A caused the injuries, rendering the medical evidence insufficient to support the plaintiff’s claims.

Inclusion of the General Amnesty Law

A significant turning point in the case was the inclusion of the General Amnesty Law. This law dropped the public right aspect of the case, limiting the proceedings to the personal right claim only. This meant that the case was no longer a criminal one but a civil case seeking personal right compensation. Our team leveraged this point to bolster our defense, arguing that the case lacked sufficient evidence to convict our client.

The Court's Ruling

1. Rejection of the Personal Right Claim:
o Inconsistent Testimony: The court disregarded Ms. B’s testimony in the personal right claim due to the clear contradictions between her statement to the security center and her testimony in court. In the security center, she mentioned being struck in the manager’s office, whereas in court, her account differed.
2. Evidence Presented:
o Hearsay Testimonies: The court rejected the hearsay testimonies provided by the witnesses, deeming them inadmissible as legal evidence since they were not direct accounts of the incident.
o Expert Report: The expert report prepared for the case could not confirm the occurrence of the incident due to a lack of recordings before a certain date, leading the court to exclude this evidence.
3. Application of the General Amnesty Law: The court concluded that the case fell under the General Amnesty Law, limiting the legal consideration to the personal right claim, and ruling that there was insufficient evidence to support the plaintiff’s claims.

After lengthy sessions and a thorough review of all evidence and testimonies, the court issued its ruling, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim. The court affirmed that the evidence and testimonies were not sufficient to substantiate the allegations against our client. The contradictions in testimonies, the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence, and the insufficient medical report were all factors that led to this decision.

Ms. B was dissatisfied with the lower court’s ruling and appealed the decision. However, the Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision, confirming that the first court had correctly applied the law and reached the same conclusion: the case was dismissed due to a lack of sufficient evidence, making the decision legally sound.

Final Decision

This decision was a significant victory for our firm and our client. We were proud of the success we achieved in defending the truth and justice. Our client was able to restore her reputation and position at work after her innocence was proven. This triumph reflects our commitment to defending our clients’ rights with honesty and diligence.

A Lesson Learned

This case taught us the importance of paying attention to fine details and thoroughly analyzing every piece of evidence. It also reaffirmed our belief that justice always prevails when cases are handled with professionalism and dedication.

At Al-Madani & Partners, we believe that success in the legal world requires more than just knowledge of the law; it demands a commitment to defending the truth and tireless work to achieve justice. We will always remain at the service of our clients, defending their rights and trusting in our ability to achieve justice in every case we handle.