Criminal Courts
Jurisdiction of the High Criminal Court under Jordanian Law
Jordanian legislation, primarily Law No. 19 of 1986 as amended by temporary Law No. 13 of 2010, allocates an exclusive list of serious offenses to the High Criminal Court and sets out its composition and procedures. That regulatory framework raises practical and procedural issues concerning the court's legal nature, appeal routes, statutory timelines and the treatment of related or concurrent offenses.
Leases and use rights
Criminal Courts
Updated: 22 October 2022
Editorial summary linked to the identified external source; it is not the original source text.
Smart reading summary
Understand and share the study quickly
Jordanian legislation, primarily Law No. 19 of 1986 as amended by temporary Law No. 13 of 2010, allocates an exclusive list of serious offenses to the High Criminal Court and sets out its composition and procedures. That regulatory framework raises practical and procedural issues concerning the court's legal nature, appeal routes, statutory timelines and the treatment of related or concurrent offenses.
Key points
- Establishment and Legal Composition
- Legal Nature and Practical Criticisms
- Scope of Core and Plenary Jurisdiction
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.
Establishment and Legal Composition
The High Criminal Court was established by Law No. 19/1986 and its organization was altered by temporary Law No. 13/2010, which revised composition and formation rules. The statutory framework creates a distinct criminal court within the Ministry of Justice payroll, prescribes appointment standards for the president and judges, and subjects court judges and prosecutors to the legal status applicable to regular judges. Practically, this configuration departs from ordinary court structures and has implications for administrative responsibility, budgetary allocation and the territorial scope of prosecutorial authority.
Legal Nature and Practical Criticisms
The court's creation provoked doctrinal and judicial debate over whether it is a truly special tribunal or part of the regular judicial order; case law has emphasized that its judges remain subject to the legal regime of ordinary judges. Critics have focused on practical consequences for defense guarantees, notably the limitation or replacement of ordinary appeal routes with direct recourse to the Court of Cassation, and on the legislator’s emphasis on expedited adjudication which some argue undermines the two-tier appeal principle and procedural protections.
Scope of Core and Plenary Jurisdiction
The court’s original jurisdiction is limited to the offenses expressly listed in the statute (specified homicides, rape and sexual assault, criminal abduction, and other enumerated articles amended in 2010), including attempts. Additionally, the court may exercise plenary or extended jurisdiction when offenses are related or connate, so that related charges are tried together before a single tribunal to avoid conflicting rulings and to consolidate evidence. In practice, the Code of Criminal Procedure (notably Articles 136–137) guides the referral of related offenses to the court competent for the gravest charge among them.
Procedural Aspects: Timetables, Prosecution and Transfer of Authority
The regime sets tight procedural deadlines: prosecutors must issue an indictment decision and transmit files within prescribed short periods, the court is required to sit in consecutive days with limited postponements, and judgments are to be rendered within statutory time-limits. While intended to expedite proceedings, these deadlines constrain investigative and defensive processes; the legislation also grants the court prosecutor nationwide territorial competence and permits delegation to local prosecutors for certain acts, with specific exceptions such as the issuance of the primary decision of suspicion.
Court of Cassation Jurisprudence and Limits on the Joinder Rule
The Court of Cassation has addressed jurisdictional questions in cases of related offenses, repeatedly holding that competence is determined by the gravest offense and that consolidation of related charges before a single court serves the interest of justice. Nonetheless, applying the joinder principle across courts of different types or levels remains fact-sensitive and falls to the trial court's assessment; practitioners should note that factual circumstances determine whether the High Criminal Court may assume jurisdiction over cases not explicitly enumerated in its original statutory list.
Legal notice
Notice: This material is for general educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. The original source is linked on the referenced webpage; verify applicable statutes, amendments and procedural deadlines, and consult a licensed lawyer before taking action.
Frequently asked questions
Establishment and Legal Composition?
The High Criminal Court was established by Law No. 19/1986 and its organization was altered by temporary Law No. 13/2010, which revised composition and formation rules. The statutory framework creates a distinct criminal court within the Ministry of Justice payroll, prescribes appointment standards for the president and judges, and subjects court judges and prosecutors to the legal status applicable to regular judges. Practically, this configuration departs from ordinary court structures and has implications for administrative responsibility, budgetary allocation and the territorial scope of prosecutorial authority.
Legal Nature and Practical Criticisms?
The court's creation provoked doctrinal and judicial debate over whether it is a truly special tribunal or part of the regular judicial order; case law has emphasized that its judges remain subject to the legal regime of ordinary judges. Critics have focused on practical consequences for defense guarantees, notably the limitation or replacement of ordinary appeal routes with direct recourse to the Court of Cassation, and on the legislator’s emphasis on expedited adjudication which some argue undermines the two-tier appeal principle and procedural protections.
Scope of Core and Plenary Jurisdiction?
The court’s original jurisdiction is limited to the offenses expressly listed in the statute (specified homicides, rape and sexual assault, criminal abduction, and other enumerated articles amended in 2010), including attempts. Additionally, the court may exercise plenary or extended jurisdiction when offenses are related or connate, so that related charges are tried together before a single tribunal to avoid conflicting rulings and to consolidate evidence. In practice, the Code of Criminal Procedure (notably Articles 136–137) guides the referral of related offenses to the court competent for the gravest charge among them.
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.