The flogging sentence in a hashish possession case in Saudi Arabia was overturned, and imprisonment was deemed sufficient

In a legal precedent reflecting the ongoing development of the Saudi Arabian justice system, the Court of Appeal overturned a lower court ruling that had sentenced a citizen convicted of drug trafficking to 80 lashes. The court replaced the corporal punishment with a two-month prison sentence and a two-year travel ban, citing a number of legal considerations and mitigating circumstances surrounding the case.

The incident involved the arrest of a citizen found in possession of a small quantity of hashish, no more than three grams. The appeals court overturned the flogging sentence issued by the lower court, which had been based on the charge of drug use. The appeals judges based their decision on a thorough legal review, which revealed that the defendant's admission was limited to possessing the narcotic substance for personal use. The act of use itself was not proven by legally and officially recognized evidence, thus fundamentally altering the legal characterization of the offense and necessitating a reclassification of the sentence to reflect the established act of mere possession.

Context of judicial reforms and the shift towards alternative sanctions

This ruling aligns with the modern trends in the Saudi judiciary, which has undergone radical transformations in recent years. In 2020, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision abolishing flogging as a discretionary punishment, replacing it with imprisonment, fines, or both, or other alternative penalties. This shift aims to modernize the penal system in accordance with international human rights standards, focusing on the reformative and rehabilitative aspects of punishment rather than physical pain, reflecting the Kingdom's Vision 2030 for developing the justice system.

This ruling carries significant implications at the local level, as it reinforces the principle of "individualized sentencing," meaning that each case should be considered in light of its specific circumstances, rather than applying rigid, standardized sentences. In its ruling, the court took into account several humanitarian and social considerations, including the defendant's clean criminal record, indicating that the offense was an isolated incident rather than a deeply ingrained pattern of behavior. The court also considered his family responsibilities, deeming a rehabilitative sentence (a short prison term) the most appropriate measure to ensure his reintegration as a productive member of society.

The court concluded its decision by applying the principle of overlapping discretionary punishments in accordance with Royal Decree No. “M/33” of 1444 AH, confirming the confirmation of the two-month prison sentence to ensure that no one escapes punishment, while imposing a two-year travel ban as a precautionary measure to ensure the future uprightness of the convicted person.