The authority of the court to change the legal description of the criminal incident

This work was originally part of a dissertation for a master's degree in law that we submitted to the Faculty of Law, Mansoura University in 2010, under the title (Personal and Objective Limits of the Criminal Case). The university granted this research a master's degree with the highest degree permitted by its internal regulations.
This work addresses a controversial problem between the judges, the Public Prosecution and the defense, related to the authority of the criminal court to change the legal description of the criminal incident and the extent to which that authority conflicts with the court’s adherence to the accusation stated in the referral decision.
We have seen its simplification, in a manner consistent with the practical aspect of those working in the field of criminal law, and we have shown that the principle is the criminal court’s adherence to the limits of the case originally drawn by the referral authority – the Public Prosecution – and the court is not allowed to go beyond these limits by adding new facts or new accused, Nevertheless, the legislator gave the court the power to change the legal description of the incident and obligated it to give the facts presented to it their correct legal description and to apply to them the text of the law that should be applied to them, even if this description is more severe than what the accusation attributed to it, and it is equal in that that the court is The Court of First Instance or the Court of Appeal, however, this authority is restricted by several restrictions, including that the amendment does not involve new facts, does not offend the position of the accused, and does not violate the rights of the defense.