Author(s): Abdullah Mohammed Ehjelah, Mohammad Nawwaf AL-Fawareh
In fact, the Jordanian legislator hasn’t stipulated an explicit criterion; under Article (72/1) of the Penal Code, for addressing real concurrence of offences, as it did not require the absence of a peremptory judgment in one of the crimes to apply the concept of real concurrence of offences. Accordingly, the Jordanian judiciary has adopted a more expansive approach in integrating or aggregated penalties for all the crimes committed; whether those pursued in one prosecution or several separate prosecutions - even if a peremptory judgment was rendered in one of these crimes. With this rationale, this research comes to clarify the position of the Jordanian judiciary on real concurrence of offences; compared to the Syrian and Lebanese judiciaries. This research concluded a set of findings and recommendations; the most important of which is that the Jordanian judiciary has expanded the application of real concurrence of offences compared to the Syrian and Lebanese judiciaries. This is justified by the absence of a clear legislative standard under the provisions that govern real concurrence of offences under the Jordanian legislation. This situation requires a legislative amending intervention for such provisions to serve their purpose, and to rid them of any ambiguity that may arise upon application.