Judicial principles and studies
Invalidity of an Accused’s Statement for Lack of Understanding of Rights — Code of Criminal Procedure
The study outlines when an accused’s statement is void for failure to inform the accused of legal rights—notably the right not to answer except with counsel under Article 63—and the limits on using one accused’s statement against another under Article 148(2).
Crime and penalties
Judicial principles and studies
Updated: 10 September 2026
Editorial summary of a judicial principle or decision; consult the source below and do not treat the firm as the author of the decision.
Smart reading summary
Understand and share the study quickly
The study outlines when an accused’s statement is void for failure to inform the accused of legal rights—notably the right not to answer except with counsel under Article 63—and the limits on using one accused’s statement against another under Article 148(2).
Key points
- Subject
- Summary
- Practical significance
Useful for: Useful for initial reading and identifying questions that may need legal review.
This automatic summary is based on the published text. It is not legal advice and does not replace checking official sources and reviewing the facts with a qualified lawyer.
AI generation is optional and subject to Gemini usage limits. Do not send client data or attachments from this card.
Subject
This study addresses the invalidity of an accused’s statement when the accused was not informed of legal rights—specifically the right not to answer except in the presence of counsel under Article 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure—and the admissibility of one accused’s statement against another under Article 148(2).
Summary
A statement is void if the accused was not made aware of the legal rights provided, including the right not to answer except with a lawyer (Article 63). Under Article 148(2), an accused’s statement cannot be relied on to convict another accused unless it is accompanied by an additional corroborating circumstance.
Practical significance
Accordingly, statements obtained without the required notification of rights are to be treated as void, and an accused’s statement should not serve as evidence against another accused without supporting corroboration. This is an educational summary and not judicial text or legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Subject?
This study addresses the invalidity of an accused’s statement when the accused was not informed of legal rights—specifically the right not to answer except in the presence of counsel under Article 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure—and the admissibility of one accused’s statement against another under Article 148(2).
Summary?
A statement is void if the accused was not made aware of the legal rights provided, including the right not to answer except with a lawyer (Article 63). Under Article 148(2), an accused’s statement cannot be relied on to convict another accused unless it is accompanied by an additional corroborating circumstance.
Practical significance?
Accordingly, statements obtained without the required notification of rights are to be treated as void, and an accused’s statement should not serve as evidence against another accused without supporting corroboration. This is an educational summary and not judicial text or legal advice.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.
Study collection
Courts, judicial principles, and enforcement
Browse the other studies in this subject through its dedicated topical section.
Open study collectionA related service path
Commercial and civil litigation
If this study is close to your matter, review the service scope and contact the firm to discuss the facts and documents.
Review the related serviceRelated Jordanian-law guides
Contextual links to related public guide routes; they remain limited to Jordanian law and do not replace matter review.