When the expert plays judge
the Supreme Court redraws the technical mission (Criminal Cassation 11/12/1997)

1. What the expert did — and should not have done

The Court of Cassation's reasoning pinpoints the expert's overreach precisely, quoting his own report directly:

Here the expert holds a genuine investigative hearing. He listens to the defendant, gathers the testimony, requests the explanations of the water and forestry administration's representative. His conclusion is not technical (measurement, topographic identification, distinguishing forest soil from agricultural soil) — it is jurisdictional: the defendant's criminal liability is not established. Yet that characterisation belongs to the judge alone.

2. The core reasoning of the Court of Cassation

The Court quashes by laying down a principle that deserves to be pinned up in every appraisal office:

The Court applies articles 347 (paragraph 7) and 352 (paragraph 2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which require every judgment to be reasoned in fact and in law — failing which it is void. A judgment resting on a flawed reasoning (here, an expert report that oversteps its mission) is equivalent to an unreasoned judgment. The sanction is annulment.

3. The boundary between technical and jurisdictional

This ruling draws a clear boundary that every expert (court-appointed or private) must respect:

• The expert's domain: physical findings (topographic measurements, boundary identification, samples, dated and geolocated photographs, comparables analysis, applying a valuation method, computing a value)
• The judge's domain: hearing the parties, hearing the witnesses, legal characterisation of the facts, assessment of evidence, ruling on liability or on the applicable law

An expert who questions the parties to understand the object of the mission (for example gathering information about a property's history during an adversarial appraisal) stays within his domain — it is even RICS practice. But an expert who questions the parties and witnesses to decide whether an offence is made out, as in this ruling, steps outside his mission and exposes the decision to cassation.

4. Why this ruling remains fully applicable in 2026

The principle laid down in 1997 has never been called into question. It is constantly reaffirmed by the Court of Cassation and by the Moroccan Courts of Appeal, including in recent civil and commercial matters. For property experts, the rule translates as follows:

• Write in technical terms, never in jurisdictional ones: never write “the author is not liable” or “the claim is time-barred” — write “the measured area is X”, “the apparent age is Y”, “the market value is Z”
• Document factual sources without legally characterising their weight: noting that a party stated occupation began in 2018 does not mean the expert validates that date — it is for the judge to assess
• Clearly distinguish personal findings (measurements, photos) from reported information (statements of the parties, witnesses, documents)
• Draw no conclusions on guilt, liability, prescription or enforceability — all of which are jurisdictional characterisations
• Conclude with a value range or a technical assessment, never with a moral or criminal judgment

For a strictly technical, RICS-compliant valuation, see our independent property appraisal service and browse more analyses on the ReaConsult blog.