General

Kuwait’s Criminal Court has sentenced three men to death and handed five-year prison terms to eight others over an alleged plot to assassinate the country’s First Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister, involving espionage for Iran and links to the Lebanese Hezbollah organisation, local media reported.

The three men sentenced to death were identified as Hussein Abdullah Al-Matouq, Hassan Abdulhadi Hajieh and Abdulreza Haidar Dehqani.

The verdict was delivered by the State Security Circuit of the Criminal Court, presided over by Judge Nasser Al-Badr and comprising three other judges.

The case involved charges of undermining Kuwait’s national interests, collaborating with Iran, joining Hezbollah and planning hostile acts against the state, including an alleged assassination attempt targeting the Interior Minister.

Alleged Assassination Plot

According to details reported by local media, defendants four through 10 held meetings to plan the assassination and divided responsibilities among themselves.

The 11th defendant was allegedly assigned to provide the equipment required for the operation, acting under the direction of the first three defendants.

The defendants were also accused of plotting an explosives attack intended to spread fear and create instability in Kuwait. The 11th defendant faced a separate charge of attempting to smuggle explosives into the country to facilitate the planned operation.

The court said the defendants had sought to undermine Kuwait’s security, fuel unrest and erode public confidence in the authorities’ ability to protect lives and property.

It stressed that national security was a collective right belonging to society as a whole, warning that Kuwait would not tolerate foreign interference or allow its institutions to become targets of plots organised from abroad.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico have expanded their legal challenge against US President Donald Trump's efforts to restrict their access to the White House, alleging that the administration has continued to penalise them over their news coverage despite a court order requiring their access to be restored.

In an amended complaint filed before a federal court in Washington, the three media organisations have asked a judge to prevent the White House from excluding their journalists from press pool assignments covering events in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One. The press pool system allows a limited number of journalists to cover presidential activities in confined spaces and share their reports with other media organisations.

US District Judge Timothy Kelly has issued a series of orders since September 24 directing the Trump administration to restore White House access for journalists representing the three organisations. The orders followed the administration's earlier decision to bar the outlets from the White House.

However, the media companies contend that the administration has continued to exclude their journalists from certain areas despite the court's intervention. They argue that the restrictions violate the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and the press.

Responding to the latest legal action, the White House defended its position, saying in a statement: "The Fake News has no place demanding a spot in the President’s Oval Office."

Rock musician Neil Young has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against a political committee associated with US President Donald Trump, alleging that it used his song ‘Rockin’ in the Free World’ without authorisation at a campaign rally.

The lawsuit was filed on Monday in a federal court in Virginia against the Trump 47 Committee, which Young alleges played the 1989 song before Trump took the stage at a rally in Youngstown, Ohio, on October 12, in support of Republican candidates in the midterm elections.

Young’s complaint argues that the song was used without a licence. It also describes the track as a work that contrasts political rhetoric with the harsh realities faced by disadvantaged people, arguing that its message is fundamentally opposed to Trump’s political stance.

White House spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the complaint.

Young previously sued Trump’s campaign in 2020 over the alleged unauthorised use of ‘Rockin’ in the Free World’ and another song at campaign rallies. According to the latest complaint, the campaign agreed, as part of a settlement later that year, not to use ‘Rockin’ in the Free World’ again without a licence.

Young is now seeking $10 million in damages over the latest alleged infringement.

The case, Young v. Trump 47 Committee Inc., has been filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under case number 3:26-cv-01398.

The Dubai Court of Appeal has overturned a criminal conviction and acquitted a defendant after finding that the evidence presented in the case was insufficient to establish guilt to the required legal standard.

The case arose from serious allegations linked to a professional business-coaching relationship. The original conviction exposed the defendant to significant legal consequences, including imprisonment and deportation from the UAE.

The appeal centred on whether the prosecution’s evidence was sufficiently reliable and conclusive to sustain the conviction. The defence challenged the basis of the allegations and argued that the material before the court did not establish criminal liability with the degree of certainty required under the law.

The defence team conducted a detailed review of the case, examining the complainant’s statements, electronic forensic evidence and correspondence relied upon by the prosecution. Its submissions questioned the strength of the evidence and highlighted material doubts concerning the allegations.

The appeal also focused on the limitations of the evidence presented and whether it was sufficient to justify the original finding of guilt. The defence maintained that allegations alone could not support a criminal conviction without adequate and reliable evidence establishing the defendant’s responsibility.

After considering the appeal, the Court of Appeal accepted the defence’s position, overturned the original judgment and acquitted the defendant. The court found that the evidence did not establish guilt with the requisite certainty and that the doubts arising from the material before it prevented the conviction from being upheld.

The appellate ruling also set aside the original custodial sentence and deportation order, removing the legal consequences imposed under the earlier judgment.

The litigation was led by UAE-based legal consultancy Kaden Boriss, whose legal team challenged the conviction through a focused appellate strategy centred on evidential scrutiny and the legal standard required to establish criminal liability.

The outcome highlights the role of appellate proceedings in examining whether a criminal conviction is supported by sufficient evidence. It also reinforces the principle that criminal liability must be established through reliable evidence capable of sustaining a finding of guilt, rather than allegations that remain unproven.

The judgment underscores the importance of a thorough assessment of witness statements, electronic evidence and other material relied upon by the prosecution, particularly where a conviction carries consequences as serious as imprisonment and deportation.

The Supreme Court has reiterated that prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be allowed to become punishment without trial, emphasising that an accused person’s right to personal liberty and a speedy trial is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu made the observation in Mahesh Chandra Joshi v. State of Rajasthan, while granting bail to Mahesh Chandra Joshi and Mukesh Pathak in a corruption case involving allegations of forged documents used to secure contracts worth ₹979.45 crore under Rajasthan’s Jal Jeevan Mission.

“As repeatedly emphasised by this Court, prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be permitted to degenerate into punishment without trial in derogation of an undertrial’s Fundamental Right to personal liberty and speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the Court held in its order dated October 16.

The Court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations but stressed that their seriousness alone could not justify keeping an accused in custody indefinitely.

“The gravity of the allegations, however serious, cannot by itself eclipse all other considerations governing the grant of bail or justify indefinite pre-trial detention,” the Bench observed.

The case arose from an Anti-Corruption Bureau investigation into alleged irregularities in tenders issued by Rajasthan’s Public Health Engineering Department.

According to the prosecution, two firms, Shri Ganpati Tubewell Company and Shree Shyam Tubewell Company, allegedly used fabricated work-completion certificates and letters of acceptance purportedly issued by IRCON International Limited to participate in tenders between 2021 and 2023.

The prosecution further alleged that the firms acted in collusion with public servants and private individuals to secure 104 work orders. An FIR was registered on October 30, 2024.

Joshi and Pathak were subsequently arrested. The Rajasthan High Court rejected their regular bail applications on August 13, 2026, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.

While acknowledging that the allegations of financial irregularities and collusion in a public welfare project were serious, the Supreme Court identified several factors that weighed in favour of granting bail.

The Bench noted that the investigation against both appellants had been completed and chargesheets had been filed. As the documentary and electronic evidence had already been seized, the risk of tampering with evidence was substantially reduced. The Court also found no requirement for further custodial interrogation or recovery.

The period of incarceration was another consideration. Joshi, aged about 72, had spent more than five months in custody in the present case, while Pathak had been imprisoned for nearly eight months. The Court also noted that both men had secured bail in connected proceedings arising from the same underlying allegations.

The Bench further considered the likely duration of the trial, taking into account the extensive volume of evidence and the number of people involved. The case includes 22 accused, three chargesheets, 124 prosecution witnesses and 192 documents running to more than 20,000 pages.

Charges had not yet been framed and the trial had not commenced. Given the scale of the evidence and the number of witnesses, the proceedings were likely to take considerable time, the Court observed.

The Bench also took note of the fact that several co-accused had been granted bail or interim protection. Assessing these circumstances collectively, it concluded that further incarceration of the appellants was neither warranted nor necessary.

The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the High Court’s order insofar as it concerned Joshi and Pathak and directed their release on bail.

People facing criminal orders in Bahrain could be given one month to challenge them, instead of the current seven days, under a proposed legal amendment.

The bill has received unanimous support from Parliament’s Foreign Affairs, Defence and National Security Committee, chaired by MP Dr Hassan Bukhammas, despite government concerns that extending the deadline could affect the speed and efficiency of the criminal justice system.

A criminal order is a simplified procedure used to deal with certain less serious offences without a conventional public trial.

Dr Bukhammas said the amendment was intended to give defendants more time to assess their legal position before deciding whether to accept a criminal order or challenge it before the courts.

He said the right to object should be meaningful, with defendants given sufficient time to understand the consequences of a criminal order and decide whether to pursue the appropriate legal remedies.

The proposed amendment would revise Article 277 of the 2002 Criminal Procedures Law. It would extend the objection period from seven days to one month from the date the order is issued for the Public Prosecution, and from the date of notification for other parties.

If an objection is filed within the prescribed period, the criminal order is cancelled and the case proceeds through the ordinary court process. If no objection is lodged within the deadline, the order becomes final and enforceable.

The government has urged Parliament to reconsider the proposal, arguing that the existing seven-day period serves the purpose of criminal orders by enabling minor cases to be resolved quickly, easing pressure on courts and speeding up fine collection while preserving defendants’ right to challenge decisions.

It warned that extending the deadline to one month could delay proceedings without offering defendants a substantial additional safeguard.

The government also cited comparable legislation in Gulf and Arab countries, where objection periods generally range from three to 10 days.

Justice, Islamic Affairs and Endowments Minister Nawaf Al Maawda supported the government’s objections. The National Institution for Human Rights also cautioned that the longer period could slow judicial proceedings and recommended retaining the existing deadline.

The Bahrain Bar Society, however, said it had no objection to the amendment.

Parliament To Review Bermuda Tax Agreement Protocol

Separately, Parliament is expected to refer a protocol amending Bahrain’s double taxation agreement with Bermuda to its Financial and Economic Affairs Committee for review.

The draft law, referred by Crown Prince and Prime Minister Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, seeks to ratify amendments to the agreement aimed at avoiding double taxation and preventing fiscal evasion in relation to income taxes. The protocol was signed in Washington on April 17, 2026.

The committee currently has neither a chairman nor a vice-chairman after MP Abdulwahid Qarata formally questioned its formation, despite having requested membership.

One in three Americans believe the government should make a second attempt to execute a convicted criminal if the first attempt fails, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted after a botched lethal injection in Tennessee.

The four-day poll, completed on Monday, found that 39% of respondents believed the prisoner should instead be allowed to serve life in prison following a failed execution, while 26% were unsure which approach was preferable.

The nationwide survey revealed limited public support for attempting to execute inmates who survive an initial attempt. The issue has come into focus in Tennessee after Christa Pike, 50, survived two lethal injection attempts last month in Nashville.

The convicted murderer was taken to hospital unconscious after the attempted execution, in a critical condition and with severe injuries to her arms, after two syringes containing the barbiturate pentobarbital failed to kill her. The incident marked Tennessee’s second botched lethal injection this year. She did not regain consciousness for five days.

Most countries worldwide, along with 23 US states, have abolished capital punishment. States that retain the death penalty have struggled in recent years to obtain the drugs used in lethal injections, prompting some to consider alternative methods, including firing squads.

A narrow majority of Americans — 55% — continue to support capital punishment for people convicted of the most serious crimes. This represents a decline from the 63% who backed the policy in a Reuters/Ipsos poll in 2017. In the latest survey, 31% of respondents opposed the death penalty, while 13% either did not know or declined to answer.

The issue has gained fresh significance as courts consider whether states can schedule a second execution after an initial attempt fails.

The US Supreme Court recently allowed a state to proceed with scheduling a second execution date following an unsuccessful attempt. Kenneth Smith, who was convicted of a 1988 murder-for-hire, survived an execution attempt in Alabama in 2022 after prison officials failed to establish intravenous access. Alabama subsequently executed him in 2024 using nitrogen gas, a method intended to cause death by suffocation.

Opposition To Livestreaming Executions

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth recently raised the possibility of the first-ever livestream of a US execution, referring to the planned execution by firing squad of Nidal Hasan, a former US Army major who killed 13 people at the military base at Fort Hood, Texas.

Following widespread criticism, including from Republican lawmakers, President Donald Trump cancelled plans to livestream the execution. Officials nevertheless intend to carry it out on December 3.

The poll found that 46% of Americans considered execution by firing squad appropriate for Hasan. The figure included 29% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans.

However, 71% of respondents said broadcasting executions to the public on television or the internet was inappropriate. Majorities of both Democrats and Republicans shared that view.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online across the United States, collecting responses from 1,679 adults. The survey had a margin of error of two percentage points.

Politically appointed lawyers at the US Department of Justice (DOJ) have submitted more than a dozen court filings in federal trial and appeals courts without the signatures of career attorneys, an unusual practice, according to Bloomberg Law, citing former department officials.

The growing involvement of lawyers from the DOJ’s so-called “front office” in major litigation marks a departure from previous administrations, former department lawyers said. The shift comes as the department faces substantial departures among its career workforce and pursues arguments that would expand executive power.

Political appointees have also frequently appeared in court to defend some of the second Trump administration’s most controversial actions, including the demolition of the White House’s East Wing to make way for a new ballroom and its policy of expanding immigration detention.

The practice of submitting briefs without the signatures of career attorneys was “extraordinarily rare in any administration”, including Donald Trump’s first term, said Jennifer Ricketts, a former branch director in the DOJ’s civil division who worked at the department for more than three decades.

She described the trend as troubling, arguing that it undermined the department’s institutional integrity and credibility.

The front office’s more prominent role in litigation comes amid concerns that President Donald Trump is politicising the department and redirecting its mission towards conservative causes. It also follows an exodus of career lawyers since Trump returned to the White House in January 2025.

Career attorneys may have contributed behind the scenes to briefs they did not sign. However, some submissions signed exclusively by political appointees have adopted language that differs from the tone typically used in government filings.

In one motion, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward accused a non-profit organisation that had sued the administration of suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.

In another brief, two politically appointed DOJ lawyers warned that the Kennedy Center faced “physical and financial ruin” unless Trump’s name was displayed on the building.

DOJ spokeswoman Kiersten Pels said career lawyers and political appointees worked jointly to defend and advance the interests of the United States and uphold government actions in court. She added that career attorneys submitted the majority of briefs.

It was not unusual under recent administrations for politically appointed lawyers to handle high-profile arguments involving government priorities, particularly before appeals courts. Political appointees may volunteer to present arguments because of their interest in litigation or to strengthen their professional credentials.

More Frequent Involvement

However, front office lawyers appear to be presenting arguments more frequently, said Stacey Young, a former DOJ civil division lawyer who could not recall a brief during her tenure that lacked career lawyers’ signatures.

The absence of career attorneys from the signature line could undermine the credibility of the government’s arguments, said Young, executive director of Justice Connection, an organisation that supports former department employees.

She said the practice risked creating the impression that the department was taking a political position and suggested that career employees had either been excluded or had reservations about the ethical or legal soundness of the government’s case.

Political appointees may sign briefs to shield career lawyers from involvement in politically sensitive cases, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The increased activity also reflects the larger number of political lawyers employed by the Trump administration compared with previous administrations, the person said. Political appointees can be recruited more quickly than non-partisan career attorneys, who undergo merit-based hiring procedures and typically serve across successive administrations.

During Trump’s first 17 months in office, the DOJ appointed at least 88 political officials to policymaking positions, including counsel roles, across the department’s main divisions. That was more than twice the number appointed during the same period of Joe Biden’s administration, according to an analysis of government data by Justice Connection.

Although the increase in briefs and court arguments led by political appointees is not without precedent, it represents a notable change, said Matthew Littleton, a former career environmental lawyer at the DOJ who later served as a deputy assistant attorney general under Biden.

Littleton, who left the department in January 2025, said it was difficult to determine the precise reasons for the shift without access to internal information. However, he noted that government agencies were placing the DOJ in difficult positions in a range of cases.

Paul Perkins of Morrison Foerster, who served as associate deputy attorney general until September 2026, said the civil division had delivered strong results in defending the United States and advancing enforcement priorities, with political leadership and career attorneys working collaboratively.

Politically Sensitive Cases

Several court filings signed exclusively by political appointees originated in DOJ divisions responsible for civil and environmental litigation.

In June, Woodward and a politically appointed counsel were the only attorneys listed on a brief filed in a federal court in Virginia opposing a challenge to the administration’s subsequently abandoned plan to establish a fund for alleged victims of government “weaponisation”.

Two other civil division counsels defended the administration’s attempt to send Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was returned to the United States after being wrongfully deported to a prison in El Salvador, to a third country in a brief filed last year.

A front office lawyer serving on temporary assignment also signed two lawsuits against Michigan and Hawaii over plans to sue fossil fuel companies for climate-related damage. Both cases were dismissed.

Several opening briefs in appeals courts were likewise submitted without career lawyers listed among the signatories. The cases concerned the proposed White House ballroom, the renaming of the Kennedy Center and the dismissal of the head of Voice of America.

Stuart Gerson, who led the DOJ’s civil division under President George H. W. Bush, recalled relying heavily on career staff, whose experience and institutional knowledge he considered invaluable.

He said senior political officials benefited from the expertise of career lawyers who had extensive experience across a range of legal issues.

The practical consequences of allowing political appointees to shape the government’s legal arguments may be reflected in the positions taken in court, said Dennis Fan, director of Columbia Law School’s Appellate Litigation Clinic and a former DOJ lawyer.

He questioned whether political appointees would necessarily prioritise the interests of the United States over those of the administration they served, highlighting concerns about the distinction between defending the government and advancing a political agenda.

A US judicial rulemaking panel is considering a limited exception to the longstanding ban on televising or broadcasting audio from federal criminal trials, which would allow victims to watch proceedings remotely.

The proposal was discussed at a meeting in Boston of the US Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules. Just two years ago, the committee rejected a request by media organisations to lift the ban more broadly.

Most state courts already permit televised trials. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, federal courts have also allowed remote audio access to civil and bankruptcy proceedings when testimony is not being taken.

However, the federal judiciary has maintained its restrictions on broadcasting criminal cases, which date back to 1946. In 2024, judges cited concerns about protecting the privacy of witnesses and jurors when deciding to retain the ban on cameras.

More recently, Senior US District Judge Michael Mosman of Oregon, who chairs the committee, appointed Mary Jo White, a partner at law firm Debevoise & Plimpton and a former chair of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, to lead a subcommittee examining a possible limited relaxation of the rules.

Last year, US District Judge Edmond Chang, based in Chicago, proposed amending the rules to allow victims and third-party custodians to watch criminal proceedings remotely during bail hearings.

Chang raised the issue after finding that he could not permit the mother of a victim who died of an overdose to listen to a sentencing hearing through a closed-circuit feed from Arizona, where she lived. Both the prosecution and the defence supported allowing her to attend remotely, but the rules prevented the arrangement.

Congress has twice authorised closed-circuit broadcasts of criminal proceedings to accommodate victims. The first measure, the 9/11 Victims Access Act of 2002, allowed victims to watch the case against Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person convicted in a US court in connection with al Qaeda’s September 11, 2001, attacks.

Congress subsequently passed the Lockerbie Victims Access Act, enacted in 2024, allowing victims and family members to watch remotely the criminal proceedings scheduled for next year in Washington, DC, against a former Libyan intelligence operative accused of building the bomb that destroyed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.

White said the subcommittee planned to meet in November. It would also consider whether family members of defendants should be allowed to watch proceedings remotely.

The panel will examine possible restrictions on any new arrangement, including whether victims living outside the state where a trial is held would have to watch the proceedings from their local federal courthouse.

White, however, stressed that any proposed exception would have limits. The two earlier laws allowed judges to prohibit broadcasting altogether where necessary to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial.

The Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (QICDRC), in collaboration with LexisNexis, has hosted a discussion session examining significant cases heard by the Court during the first half of 2026, alongside the publication of its Case Digest for H1 2026.

Held at QICDRC, the session brought together members of the legal and dispute resolution community to review notable decisions and discuss the legal principles and practical lessons arising from recent judgments.

The discussion was led by Muna AlKaabi, Case Progression Manager, and Mohamed Al-Ansari, Case Manager, who presented selected cases and outlined the legal principles emerging from the Court’s recent decisions.

Faisal bin Rashid Al-Sahouti, Chief Executive Officer of QICDRC, said the latest Case Digest reflected the Court’s continued commitment to improving awareness and understanding of its jurisprudence.

By making significant decisions and their practical implications more accessible to legal and business communities, QICDRC aims to promote legal clarity and support a transparent dispute resolution environment, he said.

The Case Digest H1 2026 provides a concise overview of selected cases and significant developments in the Court’s case law during the first six months of the year. It is intended to serve as a resource for legal practitioners, businesses and other stakeholders seeking to understand the Court’s decisions and their implications.

Through its Case Digests and knowledge-sharing initiatives, QICDRC continues to promote understanding of its jurisprudence and contribute to the development of legal knowledge and dispute resolution practice in Qatar.