that joint proceedings shall be carried out with respect to all the crimes committed by an accused person and with respect to all others whose crimes are related. A similar provision applies to the investigation: if it is necessary to initiate an investigation of at least one criminal act, the investigation shall be made of all the criminal acts of the same accused and against all the accused whose crimes are related (Sec. 161, Subsec. 3).

EGYPT

The history of modern Egypt starts with the accession of Mohammad Aly. Very little appears to be known as to the methods of administration of criminal justice under this monarch.

The occupation of Egypt by Napoleon is considered as the first in a series of events which gradually brought it into closer contact with Europe, and especially with France. French influence began to be apparent in substantive and adjective criminal law. The dominance of French culture in Egypt had led to the introduction of French law as the basis of the Mixed Codes-Civil, Commercial and Criminal. Turkey had also borrowed largely from French sources in her Penal Code, issued in 1858. There were, therefore, adequate precedents for recourse to the French Codes when the time arrived for the compilation of a Native Penal Code.' The Egyptian Penal Code, promulgated on November 13, 1883, was consequently little more than an abbreviated reproduction of the French Code of 1810.

There is sufficient similarity between the principles of criminal law in all countries to make such wholesale importation less objectionable than it might be thought. Time and experience would bring with them adaptation and improvement.

A penal code is never an exhaustive statement of the penal law. It professes to do little more than provide for the punishment of the graver offenses. To obtain a complete acquaintance with the penal law it would be necessary to study a number of supplementary laws and decrees making punishable various acts of an anti-social character, generally, though not always, less serious than those mentioned in the code. Such supplementary laws sometimes profess to be additions to or alterations of the code, but more frequently they are only supplementary thereto.

Between 1883 and 1904 a large number of laws and decrees of this kind were promulgated in Egypt. Many of these were superseded either by later laws or by the revised Code of 1904. The revised Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure were promulgated February 14, 1904, and came into force April 15, 1904. The revision was by no means complete. The General Part (Articles 169) of the Penal Code was rewritten and important alterations made in other respects. Continental codes were drawn upon, in particular the Italian Penal Code of 1889, and certain articles from the Indian Penal Code were also introduced.

In 1937 the Egyptian legislature promulgated a new penal code as Law No. 58 of 1937. This code was applied by the Native and the Mixed Courts until the latter were abolished and their jurisdiction transferred to the Native Courts. The Penal Code of 1937 is still in force today, but it has gone through numerous amendments and many supplementary laws have been added to it. Egypt, through its Court of Cassation. has developed its own jurisdiction concerning many criminal law principles. This mass of jurisprudence is strictly based on the needs of the Egyptian society. Although certain articles of the Egyptian Code may resemble those of the French, Italian or Indian, their interpretation and implementation is strictly Egyptian.

Question 1. Structure:

The Egyptian Penal Code is divided into four books, each book is divided into chapters and sections, and each section contains the pertinent articles, as follows.

The extraterritoriality in Egypt created a dual system of law and administration of t-one the Mixed Courts which applied Mixed Codes on foreigners and Egyptians, nd the other a Native Courts system which applied Native Codes promulgated for the rpose of applying such codes on Egyptian nationals only.

BOOK I. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS

Chapter 1. General Principles. Articles 1-8 are concerned with the application of criminal law.

Chapter 2. Classification of offenses. Articles 9-12 classify offenses into three kinds: crimes, misdemeanors and contraventions.

Chapter 3. Punishment. Articles 13-38 classify punishment into criminal, correctional and contraventional, as well as substantive and subsidiary punishments. The substantive penalties are mentioned in Articles 13-23. The subsidiary penalties are enumerated in Articles 24-31. They are subsidiary because they cannot be imposed except together with a substantive punishment. Articles 32-38 discuss co-existent penalties or cumulative penalties.

Section 1. Under substantive penalties the following are listed: death, penal servitude (either for life or for a specific term), imprisonment, detention, fine, committal to a reformatory school, and surrender of the juvenile to his guardian. Section 2. Under subsidiary penalties the following are listed: deprivation of rights and privileges, dismissal from public office, police supervision, and confiscation.

Section 3. This section discusses co-existent penalties under Articles 32-38. Chapter 4. Principals and accessories; Articles 39-44.

Chapter 5. Attempt; Articles 45-47.

Chapter 6. Criminal conspiracy; Article 48.

Chapter 7. Recidivism; Articles 49-54.

Chapter 8. Conditional sentences; Articles 55-59.

Chapter 9. Acts done in exercise of a general right; Articles 60-63.

Chapter 10. Juvenile offenders; Articles 64-73.

Chapter 11. Pardon and amnesty; Articles 74–76.

BOOK II. CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST
AND THEIR PUNISHMENT

Chapter 1. Crimes committed against the external safety of the State; Articles 77-85.

Chapter 2. Crimes and misdemeanors committed against the internal safety of the State; Articles 86-102.

Chapter 2 bis. Explosives; Articles 102A-102F (this whole section was added by Law No. 50 of 1949).

Chapter 3. Bribery and corruption; Articles 103-111.

Chapter 4. Malversation of public funds; Articles 112-119 bis.

Chapter 5. Misuse of official position; Articles 120-125.

Chapter 6. Employment of violence, etc., by public servants; Articles 126

132.

Chapter 7. Resistance and disobedience towards public authorities; Articles 133-137 bis A.

Chapter 8. Escape from custody and harboring fugitives; Articles 138-146. Chapter 9. Breaking of seals and abstraction of papers from official custody; Articles 147-154.

Chapter 10. Unlawful assumption of titles, ranks, or office; Articles 155-159. Chapter 11. Offenses relating to creeds; Articles 160-161.

Chapter 12. Damage to buildings, monuments, and other public things; Article 162.

Chapter 13. Offenses relating to means of communication; Articles 163-170. Chapter 14. Offenses by means of the press; Articles 171-201 bis.

Chapter 15. Coinage and counterfeiting offenses; Articles 202–205.

Chapter 16. Forgery; Articles 206-227.

Chapter 17. Trade in contraband and forgery of postal and telegraph insignia; Articles 228-229.

BOOK III. CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AGAINST INDIVIDUALS

Chapter 1. Homicide, wounds and blows; Articles 230-251 bis.

Chapter 2. Willful arson; Articles 252-259.

Chapter 3. Abortion. and the manufacturing, selling, and adulteration of drugs; Articles 260-266.

Chapter 4. Offenses against decency and morality (rape and indecent acts); Articles 267–279.

Chapter 5. Unlawful arrest, kidnapping, abduction, and abandonment of family; Articles 280-293.

Chapter 6. False evidence; Articles 294–301.

Chapter 7. Defamation, insults, and disclosure of secrets; Articles 302-310. Chapter 8. Theft and extortion; Articles 311-327.

Chapter 9. Criminal bankruptcy; Articles 328-335.

Chapter 10. False pretense and abuse of confidence in respect to property entrusted; Articles 336-343.

Chapter 11. Interference with freedom of auctions and deception in trade; Articles 344-351.

Chapter 12. Games of chance and lotteries; Articles 352–353.

Chapter 13. Willful damage; Articles 354-368.

Chapter 14. Criminal trespass; Articles 369-373.

Chapter 15. Abstention from work in public utilities and interference with freedom of labor; Articles 374-375.

BOOK IV. CONTRAVENTIONS

Contraventions concerning:
Public roads; Article 376

Public safety; Articles 377-380
Public health; Articles 381-384
Public morals; Article 385

Public authorities; Article 386

Property; Articles 387-389

Weights and measures; Article 390

Persons; Articles 391-394

All contraventions listed in local and municipal decrees; Article 395.

Question 2. The numbering system:

The numbering is complete, no space is left blank, and additions are made by means of having the numbers of the provisions added to them as "bis" or "bis A" as it is shown in this Code.

Question 3. Mental elements:

The Egyptian Penal Code, like most European codes, depends on the jurisprudence and the decisions of higher courts on the question of the mental attitude of the offender towards the acts constituting the offense. However, the mental attitude is usually specified in the article which covers the offense. There are cerain general exceptions to criminal responsibility on grounds of justifiable actions, such as self defense; mental conditions, such as insanity and influence of drugs; and the acts of public officials under certain circumstances.

Commentators on the Egyptian Penal Code discuss, in this regard, what they call the elements which contribute towards the fixation of responsibility. They list these elements as:

(1) Knowledge of law; (2) knowledge of fact, and (3) intention and wrongful intention, which is referred to as malice. The offender has foreseen the act which constitutes the offense and he directs his mind towards its realization. This state of mind is expressed in the Code by the use of words such as "willfully," "wrongfully," and "intentionally."

Negligence is said to be a very vague term and consequently is difficult to define. However, the commentators use it to describe the state of mind of the man who is not aware of the possible consequences of his act, or is imprudent in determining what those consequences will be.

A distinction between "willful" omissions and "negligent" omissions is usually drawn in discussing this topic.

Question 4. Causal relationship:

The Egyptian Penal Code does not mention the “causal relationship between conduct and result" at all. However, commentators on the Code discuss this subject and cite decisions of the Egyptian Court of Cassation. It seems that the Egyptian legislature has left it to the discretion of the courts to interpret the "causal relationship" according to the circumstances of each case individually. The trend in many new penal codes of the world is toward including the principle of "causal relationship" in the code.

Question 5. Mental defect as a defense:

Article 62 of the Egyptian Penal Code provides:

No person shall be liable to punishment for any act committed at a time when he has lost power of appreciating the nature of his acts or of controlling them by reason of:

(1) Insanity or mental infirmity; or

(2) Intoxication caused by intoxicants of any kind administered to him against his will or without his knowledge.

The nature of insanity and its effect upon legal responsibility is a muchdiscussed and difficult question, particularly so because it is in part legal and in part medical.

The commentators on the Egyptian Penal Code include under insanity and mental infirmity lunatics, hypnotized persons, and persons who walk in their sleep. The Penal Code limits the irresponsibility of the insane to cases in which the disease or infirmity prevents the person from appreciating the nature of his acts or from controlling them. It does not say that wherever insanity exists there shall be irresponsibility. This article resembles those of several other countries, notably England, Italy and Germany, in that it provides the judge with tests by which he may determine whether the accused is legally insane, instead of making it necessary for him to decide the medical question as to whether the individual is technically insane.

The question has been much discussd as to whether it is advisable for the criminal law to define the conditions under which insanity frees one from responsibility. It is at least clear that the mere fact that the accused might be pronounced insane by medical experts ought not necessarily to free him. No authoritative definition of insanity has ever been given, and many forms of mental aberration are recognized by some as insane, though the ordinary citizen would be averse to treating them as affecting responsibility.

Criminal law is not concerned primarily with mental responsibility. It lays down rules excusing or exempting from penal liability those cases where the community recognizes that punishment would be unjust or useless, but where these rules do not apply it declines to permit the courts to deny liability because in their opinion circumstances or the mental peculiarities of the accused produced the crime. From this point of view it does not seem unreasonable for the law to demand that the medical evidence shall show, and that the judges shall find, that the insanity of the accused prevented him from knowing what he was doing or from controlling his acts. Only in such cases shall insanity be a defense.

The Egyptian Penal Code speaks of mental infirmity as well as of insanity, but does not indicate what it means by this distinction. Some commentators are of the opinion that mental infirmity was intended to include all temporary deprivations of intellectual power, such as somnambulism, delirium, epileptic seizures, etc., which do not constitute insanity, but produce for the time being the same effects. Whether this is the meaning of the term "mental infirmity" or not, it is considered quite certain that nobody is responsible for acts done under these conditions. The absence of any mental accompaniment frees the doer from responsibility. The Code further speaks of tests of irresponsibility, with reference to the intellect and the will. A defect of intellect arising from insanity, such as to prevent a person from appreciating the nature of his acts, frees him from responsibility. So also does a defect of will, which prevents him from controlling his acts.

The plea of insanity is no defense unless insanity at the time of the commission of the offense is proved, but a person may be insane when the offense is prosecuted, or he may be proved insane after conviction. Generally speaking, all persons found to be insane who have been accused of a criminal offense, convicted of a criminal offense, or acquitted of an accusation on the ground of insanity, are treated in the same way; that is, ordered to be detained as criminal lunatics in some establishment from which they may be released when they are deemed no longer to be dangerous. The Criminal Code of Egypt provides several complete provisions dealing with insane persons of all classes. Some of the cases dealt with are as follows:

(1) A person accused of an offense appears to be insane. He cannot, therefore, be tried. It may be desirable to intern him as a criminal lunatic by order of the investigating judge at the preliminary enquiry or by the order of the

judge during trial, if his insanity does not become apparent until the trial has started.

(2) A person accused of an offense pleads that he was insane when he committed the offense or, without a plea, the probability arises that he was insane. If in this case the accused is sane at the time of the trial he can be tried, and the Court, admitting his plea, may acquit him and order his detention as a criminal lunatic.

(3) A person convicted of an offense may afterwards become insane or be proved insane:

a. It sometimes happens that a person sentenced to death is found afterwards to be insane. The executive authorities in such a case usually remit the death penalty and order detention as a criminal lunatic. Under the Egyptian Constitution the President of Egypt has the power to remit the death penalty and order detention.

b. A person undergoing imprisonment may exhibit signs of insanity. Power is given under Law No. 141 of 1944, concerning the detention of mentally sick persons not accused of any offense, that the prisoner is transferred to a hospital for the mentally diseased and detained for treatment until considered no longer dangerous, regardless of length of time.

Question 6. Drunkenness:

Section 2 of Article 62 of the Egyptian Penal Code speaks of intoxication as follows:

Intoxication caused by intoxicants of any kind administered to him against his will or without his knowledge.

The commentators on this section have interpreted this to cover all intoxicants such as alcoholic beverages and drugs, including opium, morphia, and cocaine.

Drunkenness or intoxication brought about by the use of drugs or alcohol is a kind of temporary insanity. Yet when brought about voluntarily, the intoxicated person is held responsible for his acts, even though he did not contemplate the crime before taking the drug. A man who willfully subjects himself to temptation can hardly request indulgence. The position is different when the drug was administered without his knowledge or against his will, and this is recognized by the above-cited Section 2 of Article 62. It is concluded that voluntary drunkenness is not regarded as entitling a person to exemption from responsibility for his acts, but involuntary drunkenness and diseases caused by voluntary drunkenness do constitute a title to such exemption. Certain writers on this matter prefer to hold the intoxicated person liable only so far as negligence. These writers hold that intention is not an element in the offense, since the state of temporary insanity excludes intention.

The state of temporary insanity produced by intoxication must be distinguished from the permanent state of mental disorder which long indulgence will bring about and which is just as much a ground for exemption from responsibility as are other forms of insanity. Before the stage of insanity is reached, however, the habitual drunkard has long lost all real control over his indulgence and should not be treated as a responsible person. He should be treated the same as the insane person.

Question 7. Acts done in exercise of general right:

Articles 60-63 of the Egyptian Penal Code speak of acts done in exercise of a general right as follows:

Article 60.-An act done in good faith and in the exercise of a right recognized by law does not come within the scope of the Penal Code.

This article is interpreted by the Court of Cassation to be a general statement of a well-recognized principle. A right to use force is clearly recognized by law according to this article. A right of correction of children and young people, for example, by persons having the authority of parents is justifiable under the law. Such right must be exercised in good faith and the punishment inflicted must be moderate, according to commentators on this article. A father who chastises his child beyond measure, and causes his death, would be liable to punishment for homicide by negligence at least.

Article 61.-No person shall be liable to punishment for an offense to the commission of which he was constrained by the necessity of preserving himself or another from a great and imminent bodily danger, to which he has not voluntarily given rise and which he could not avoid by any other means.