The Supreme Court has ordered the High Court to quash its ruling on the State's request to allow the police Intelligence Officers to alter their voices while giving their testimonies in terrorism cases.
The Supreme Court's order came after the State prosecutor appealed the lower court's decision to the top Court.
The case was filed under the Prohibition of Terrorism Act on charges of attempting to go to war, possessing documents supporting terrorist groups, and conspiring to commit an act of terrorism against Ibrahim Wisam, Sausan Rasheed, and Abdullah Huwairis Bin Mohamed.
The State Prosecutor requested the Criminal Court and the High Court to order the police intelligence officers who prepared the intelligence reports and the phone and electronic device analysis reports submitted to the Court in this case to alter their voices while testifying in court.
Both courts ruled that they could not issue the order because the special danger to the individual officers had not been shown.
Among the key factors in the judgment of the Supreme Court, after considering the appeal on behalf of the Prosecutor-General, was that, in considering the existence of a “likelihood of danger”, as required by the Criminal Procedure Code, it does not necessarily require previous injury or threat.
It stated that, considering the nature of the work of intelligence workers, it was efficient to state that they were generally in danger.
In addition, the Supreme Court said that before deciding whether to testify confidentially, the court should also consider the state security system and the public interest in keeping intelligence information confidential, rather than considering only the risk to an individual.
