The binding effect of a criminal judgment on a civil case
Before explaining this rule, it is necessary to define the criminal judgment. It means a decision issued by a legally constituted court in a dispute brought before it in accordance with the law, whether the decision is issued on the merits of the dispute, on part of it, or on a matter arising from it.
Dr. Mahmoud Najib Hosni defined the criminal judgment as the judge’s declaration of the will of the law that a specific legal consequence shall be determined for a particular fact, and that the parties to the case shall be bound by it.
Definition of res judicata from a legal perspective:
This term appears when a matter has previously been brought before the judiciary and decided by a judicial judgment. In such a case, the judgment acquires the authority of res judicata if the same matter is presented again before the judiciary. In other words, the judgment becomes conclusive as to what it has decided, is deemed to conform to the truth, and the parties may not resort again to the courts regarding a matter that has already been adjudicated.
This leads us to the rule concerning the res judicata effect of a criminal judgment on the civil action:
This rule aims to prevent the renewal of disputes and the contradiction of judgments. To achieve this objective, the same dispute that has already been decided by a judicial judgment must not be brought before the courts again, because it has already been adjudicated.
It should be noted that civil judgments do not have res judicata effect before the criminal judiciary. If a person files a civil action before the Public Prosecution initiates a public criminal action, and the civil court decides the case by a final and conclusive judgment, then a public criminal action is later brought before the criminal court concerning the same offense from which the damage arose, the judgment issued in the civil action shall not have the force of res judicata before the criminal court with respect to the occurrence of the offense and its attribution to the perpetrator.
This was confirmed by Article 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which states: “Judgments issued by civil courts shall not have the force of res judicata before criminal courts with respect to the occurrence of the offense and its attribution to the perpetrator.”
It follows from the above that the rule concerning the res judicata effect of a criminal judgment on the civil action is an exception. For a criminal judgment to have res judicata effect before the civil judiciary, the criminal judgment must be final and must decide the merits of the criminal action. This is confirmed by the provisions of the Jordanian Code of Criminal Procedure in the following articles:
Article 331 provides:
Unless there is another provision, the criminal action shall be extinguished with respect to the person against whom it is brought and the facts attributed to him by the issuance of a final judgment of acquittal, non-liability, dismissal, or conviction. If a judgment is issued on the merits of the criminal action, it may not be reconsidered except by challenging that judgment through the methods prescribed by law, unless otherwise provided.
Article 332 provides:
The criminal judgment issued by the criminal court on the merits of the criminal action, whether by acquittal, non-liability, dismissal, or conviction, shall have the force of res judicata before civil courts in actions that have not yet been finally decided, with respect to the occurrence of the offense, its legal characterization, and its attribution to the perpetrator. A judgment of acquittal shall have this force whether it is based on the absence of the charge or on insufficient evidence; however, it shall not have such force if it is based on the fact that the act is not punishable by law.
Accordingly, the res judicata effect of the criminal judgment over the civil action exists even where the parties and the subject matter differ. The only requirement is the unity of the fact on which both the criminal and civil actions are based. It is an established principle that criminal judgments have absolute res judicata effect, meaning that they are binding on everyone because they relate to the freedoms and safety of individuals, which is a matter affecting the interest of society, even if the civil action is brought against a person who was not represented in the criminal action.
The Jordanian Court of Cassation has confirmed this rule in many of its decisions, including the following:
Jordanian Court of Cassation Decision (Civil) No. 1654/2013 stated: In this regard, we find that the civil court, in its case after the issuance of the criminal judgment, does not possess complete freedom of assessment and judgment; rather, it finds itself somewhat bound and restricted, to a certain extent, by what the criminal court has previously decided. Judicial practice is settled that the civil court may not disregard what the criminal judgment has necessarily and conclusively decided concerning the existence of the criminal act, the legal characterization of that act, its legal description, and its attribution to the perpetrator. This is what Article 332 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has established.
It is understood from the text of this article that if the criminal judge pronounces a conviction and imposes a specific penalty or precautionary measure on the person to whom the offense is attributed, the civil judge may not reopen for discussion the issue of the occurrence of the offense, its legal description, the validity of its attribution to the convicted person, or that person’s responsibility for it. All these matters must be accepted and considered established facts that may not be questioned. Although legal scholarship discusses the basis of the authority of res judicata, some view it through the theory of legal presumption, while others view it through the theory of a substantive rule. Jurisprudence and judicial practice have ultimately tended to regard the authority of res judicata as a substantive rule.
From the foregoing, we find that this rule affects a civil action that is still pending before the courts in the following respects:
- If the criminal action is brought before a decision is issued in the civil action pending before the civil court, the civil action must be stayed until a final judgment is issued in the criminal action. This is expressed by the rule that the criminal action stays the civil action.
- If a final judgment is issued in the criminal action before a final judgment is issued in the civil action, the criminal judgment shall have res judicata effect or force over the civil action. This is expressed by the rule concerning the res judicata effect of the criminal judgment on the civil action.