Law and order p.160

FO 371/179874 1965
Number of copies.......

I called for this file on my return from sick leave to see what stage we had reached in the attempt
to eliminate the offending clause in the draft Traffic
Law which states that "if the offender is a Moslem .
the provisions of Islamic law shall apply". As I am
putting up a separate comprehensive paper for a policy
decision on jurisdictional questions generally in Qatar,
I will restrict my comments on this file to the specific
matters which it raises.

Number of copies
of enclosures...

2. It is a pity that the Political Resident could not
have a legal adviser with him when he discussed this
legal question with Dr. Kamel, for Dr. Kamel is as
smooth and plausible a lawyer as ever came out of Levant
and it really is not fair to have to discuss legal. ........
matters with him without any legal assistance. Dr. :)
Kamel's suggestion that offences under Article 69.
(traffic accidents causing death or bodily harm) should
be tried in the Traffic Court and not in the Sharia
Court concedes nothing. The draft Law constituting the
Traffic Court already gives that Court and that Court
alone, the power to administer the Traffic law. Dr.
Kamel sold the P.R. a dummy pass.

3. Furthermore, a modern Trailic Court could not, in
practice, administer the Sharia law; only a Qadis Court
could do that. To take one example: the rules of
evidence are entirely different; in the Sharia Court
no photographs are allowed, no X-rays no plans or
sketches. Thus if a modern judge were trying a traffic
case involving Pakistani Muslims and non-Muslims he
would be faced with the impossible task of reaching a
decision based on both admissible and inadmissible
evidence. It would be like trying to conduct a choir
composed of the Beatles and the Wienerk haben.
Moreover the punishments are also widely different. In
Saudi Arabia, blood money for unintentional killing is
16,000 riyals flat, and relatives have to help to pay.
How can such a law be administered in a modern Court?
It makes a nonsense of the provisions of the Traffic
Law which provide for a maximum fine of Rs. 3,000 or
3 years imprisonment for causing death and Rs. 1,000
or 1 years imprisonment for causing bodily harm. In
any case where is the judge to be found who is qualified
in modern law and also the Sharia law? He does not
exist.

4. In Dahran the Qadis Court administers only one
system of law, the Sharia law. As there were no
motor cars in the days of the Prophet, God Bless him,
the present Government of Saudi Arabia has promulgated
some "Regulations" dealing with traffic. The Quadi
decides questions of fact and the Emir decides the
punishment to be imposed. The Aramco people, however,
have an arrangement with the Emir that iſ the infringe ment is likely to involve a heavy punishment under the
Sharia law, they will be allowed to fly out the
offender. If this is how the Sharia law works when
administered in a Sharia Court without the complication
of modern legal concepts, how much more impracticable

OI
it would be if an attempt were made to administer it
pari passur with modern law in a modern court.

der

15. There is