Case Summary and Outcome

The Criminal Chamber of the Egyptian Court of Cassation upheld a lower court’s decision that convicted an individual for spreading false news about police officers. The case arose from a video posted on social media in which the applicant accused specific police officers of corruption, collusion, and threatening her family, which was later broadcast by a television channel affiliated with an opposition group. The lower court found that her actions amounted to the deliberate dissemination of false information harmful to the public interest and imposed a short prison sentence and a fine. On appeal, the Court of Cassation ruled that the lower court had provided adequate reasoning for its decision. It further held that the applicant’s statements, regardless of her claimed intent to seek help, constituted false news capable of undermining public order. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Columbia Global Freedom of Expression notes that some of the information contained in this report was derived from secondary sources

Facts

The applicant, Hagar Mohamed El-Khreisey, was involved in a property dispute in Monofiya, Egypt. Following a police inspection in February 2022, she recorded and posted a video on her personal Facebook account. In the video, she accused named police officers from the Tala Police Station of corruption, collusion with the other party to the dispute because his son was a police officer, and threatening her family.

In the video, she stated, “The Tala Police Station has become a place of abuse and corruption under its officers. I was assaulted and threatened in my own home by the Police officers.” [p. 6] Further in her video, she stated, “It has become common practice that anyone who knows an officer or a police sergeant uses such power to oppress people.” [p.6] She also claimed officers were “trying to falsely implicate us with criminal charges.” [p. 6] She identified by name the Head of Investigations, Ahmed El-Sayad, and Assistant Investigator Said Mansour.

Shortly after, the video went viral, and the opposition channel “Al-Sharq” (which has been broadcasting from Türkiye) shared it with commentary claiming that the Egyptian police are corrupt and colluding to undermine the state and its institutions.

The Public Prosecution charged her with deliberately broadcasting false news that could harm public interest and disturb public order under Articles 102 bis and 188 of the Egyptian Penal Code. She was also charged under Article 13 of the Cybercrime Law No. 175 of 2018 for unlawfully benefiting from streaming services.

On 21 August 2022, the Tanta Economic Court convicted the applicant and sentenced her to six months’ imprisonment and a fine of 200 EGP (approximately USD 11) for spreading false news with the intent to disturb public order, incite fear among the public, and harm the public interest.

The Court held that both the material and mental elements of the crime were proven. For the material element (actus reus), the Court relied on multiple evidence: it personally reviewed the video containing the false allegations; the defendant herself admitted to filming, starring in, and live-broadcasting the video on her personal Facebook account; technical examination confirmed her phone accessed the “FARHA” account used for the broadcast; and multiple witnesses testified that her claims of police collusion and inaction were false, contextualizing the video within a long-standing property dispute where legal processes were, in fact, ongoing. As for the moral element (mens rea), the Court inferred intent and malice from the nature of the allegations—publicly accusing state institutions of corruption—and the context of broadcasting during a police action related to a legal dispute her family was losing. The Court explicitly found her motive was to incite public opinion, gain sympathy, and evade the consequences of her family’s legal troubles. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that broadcasting such accusations on a public platform inherently had the potential to disturb public security and peace by spreading terror, inciting panic, and eroding trust in state institutions.

The Court also noted that the content in question was later broadcast by Al-Sharq, a channel affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood—designated as a terrorist organization—which seeks to undermine the state and its institutions and provoke public opinion through false allegations. However, the Court found no evidence that the applicant had unlawfully benefited from broadcasting or streaming services, or that she had created the account with criminal intent. Accordingly, she was acquitted of the cybercrime charge.

On 31 August 2022, the applicant appealed this judgment before the Egyptian Court of Cassation.

Decision Overview

The Criminal Chamber of the Egyptian Court of Cassation delivered its judgment on 27 January 2024, rejecting the applicant’s appeal. The central issue before the Court was whether the lower court’s conviction was legally sound, specifically regarding the adequacy of its reasoning, evaluation of evidence, and respect for the applicant’s right of defense.

The applicant El-Khreisey argued that the lower court’s reasoning was insufficient and contradictory. She contended it failed to address her defense arguments, including the absence of criminal intent, as her purpose was merely to “seek help.” She saw a contradiction in the court acquitting her of charges related to creating the Facebook account for unlawful purposes while still finding criminal intent in publishing the video. She also denied any involvement in the video’s broadcast on Al-Sharq channel, insisting that she had only shared it on her personal Facebook account.

The Prosecution maintained that the conviction was lawful and the lower court’s reasoning was sufficient, arguing that the video’s content clearly demonstrated an intention to disturb public order by containing statements accusing police officers of corruption and threats.

The Court of Cassation began by affirming general legal principles. It stated that a judgment is valid if it contains sufficient reasoning to understand its factual and legal basis. It also held that courts enjoy broad discretion in evaluating witness credibility and the weight of evidence, and are not bound to adopt a particular form of detail as long as their assessment allows the conviction to be understood.

In its assessment, the Court found the claim of deficient reasoning to be void. It held that the appealed judgment “adequately described the facts, identified the elements of the crimes of publishing false news, provided supporting evidence, and referred to the transcripts of the two videos.” The Court determined that the applicant’s statements accusing named police officers of threats, corruption, and collusion were sufficient to establish the offense.

Regarding the allegation of ignoring contradictions in witness testimony, the Court reiterated that trial courts are entitled to rely on any portion of witness statements they find credible and to disregard the rest. It held that minor inconsistencies do not invalidate a conviction if the overall testimony supports the charges.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the applicant’s defense that her actions were a plea for help. It stated that the expression and language used in the video, accusing named officers of corruption and threats, was sufficient to constitute false news harmful to public order, regardless of her claimed motives.

Therefore, the Court of Cassation concluded that the lower court’s reasoning was neither deficient nor contradictory, and that no violation of procedural guarantees or the right of defense had occurred. The appeal was dismissed.