Cassation
No. 428 of 2022
Issued
on 07/06/2022 (Penal)
Panel:
Presided over by Mr. Judge Ahmed Abdullah Al-Mulla, Chief Judge of the Circuit,
with Messrs. Judges Muhammad Ahmed Abdel Qader and Al-Tayeb Abdel Ghafour Abdel
Wahhab as members.
(1
- 4) Court: “Trial Court: its authority to determine the evidence
establishing the proven nature of the crime and assess the witnesses’
statements.” Crime against persons: “Crimes against reputation:
Insult.”
(1)
The trial court is vested with the authority to determine the evidence
establishing the proven nature of the crime, assess the weight of witnesses'
statements, and evaluate the circumstances of their testimonies. This falls
within the exclusive purview of the trial court without further review, provided
the condition of this authority is met.
(2)
In legal terminology, insulting is characterised by the use of explicit language
that signifies a flaw in a person or an expression demeaning to them. To
establish the commission of the crime, a general intent is sufficient.
(3)
Assessment of confessions in criminal matters at all stages of the case is
within the discretionary authority of the trial court, contingent upon the
condition that the confession is given freely and consciously.
(4)
The appealed ruling, confirmed by the contested ruling convicting the appellant,
is grounded in the evidence presented, supported by documented facts, and the
trial court's insightful and foresighted examination of the case. Contesting the
judgment on the basis of an error in the application of the law and deficiencies
in reasoning, stemming from the presence of good faith and the absence of
intent, reflects a substantive disagreement within the trial court's authority,
warranting dismissal.
1-
It is prescribed, as per the ruling of the Supreme Court, that the trial court,
while deriving its conviction of the proven crime, may rely on any evidence it
finds credible, provided that this evidence is supported in documented facts.
The court weighs the statements of witnesses, evaluates the circumstances
surrounding their testimonies and bases its ruling thereon, irrespective of
objections and suspicions raised against them. These powers are vested in the
trial court, affording it the discretion to assign value and significance to the
evidence it finds satisfactory. By adopting a witness's testimony, the court is
considered to have meticulously scrutinised all considerations advanced by the
defence with the aim of refuting them.
2-
It is established that insult, within the legal terminology, involves cursing
through the use of explicit words indicating such an act. This definition aligns
with the legal understanding that deems insult as any attribution of a defect or
an expression demeaning a person. The determination of the truth of the uttered
words is grounded in what the judge is convinced of to comprehend the reality of
the case. According to the law, the commission of the crime does not necessitate
a specific intent but rather suffices with a general intent, achieved through
the offender's awareness that matters involving insults degrade the
person.
3-
It is prescribed, as per the ruling of the Supreme Court, that a confession in
criminal matters is a facet within the complete discretion of the trial court to
assess its validity and probative value. The court may accept a confession,
whether made during the evidence collection stage, within the investigations of
the Public Prosecution, or before the court, as long as it was provided freely
and consciously.
4-
Given the circumstances, and whereas the appealed ruling, confirmed by the
contested ruling on substantive grounds, meticulously addressed the case's
facts, demonstrating insightful analysis and foresight, convicted the appellant
based on well-founded reasons. The conviction was supported by credible
evidence, notably the appellant's confession within the evidence record wherein
he admitted to informing the complainant about his daughter's interaction with
an individual named ".......," claiming friendship. The appellant further
acknowledged his communication with the victim until she blocked him and
admitted to maintaining multiple social media accounts. Additionally, the
complainant's statements included details about the accused discussing the
victim's honour, issuing threats to tarnish her reputation, and bringing
disgrace to her and her family fuelled by her decision to end their
relationship. In the course of the Public Prosecution's investigations, the
victim provided statements indicating that the accused initiated contact with
her through social media, establishing a friendship and making promises of
proposing to her. Subsequently, it became apparent to her that the accused was a
friend of her brother and an unsuitable individual. Following complications in
their relationship, she decided to terminate their relationship, prompting the
accused to resort to threats, blackmail, and the defamation of her
reputation.
During
the Public Prosecution's investigations, a witness .... reported overhearing the
accused informing the complainant that his daughter was socialising with his
friend, expressing intentions to invite the complainant to witness their
interaction. The witness also testified to the accused's statements about
seeking revenge on the victim's mother (the complainant's ex-wife) citing a
prior romantic involvement with her and his plans to arrange an encounter
between his friend and the complainant's daughter (the victim). The witness
..... affirmed that the accused, known to be a friend of the victim's daughter,
engaged in communication with her for a duration of two months, during which he
resorted to threats, defamation, and the tarnishing of her reputation.
Considering
the cumulative evidence, the ruling found the appellant guilty of the charges
against him and imposed the prescribed legal penalty. The conclusion drawn by
the appealed ruling, subsequently confirmed by the contested ruling on the basis
of sound reasoning and established facts, stands as a valid, and is supported by
well-documented facts. Consequently, the appellant's objection amounts to a mere
substantive disagreement concerning the trial court's authority to comprehend
factual intricacies of the case and assess the evidence presented therein. Such
disagreements may not be brought or upheld before this court, rendering the
objection untenable. As a result, the appeal for cassation is to be
dismissed.
Whereas
in the facts, as apparent pursuant to the perusal of the contested ruling and
other documents, that the Public Prosecution levelled accusations against the
appellant for events occurring on 28/6/2021 and a prior date, alleging the
following charges:
1-
Threatening the victim with defamation, and damaging her and her family’s
reputation by disgracing her, following the termination of their relationship
and her request for non-communication, as outlined in the investigations.
2-
Slandering and insulting the aforementioned victim through the use of
obscenities that were offensive to honour and detrimental to the family’s
reputation, as detailed in the investigations.
3-
Exploiting the services of the Emirates Telecommunications Corporation to engage
in abuse, harassment, and emotional distress towards the victim. This was
purportedly executed through the transmission of text messages, as evidenced in
the report and utilising the phone seized in connection with the case, as
described in the investigations.
The
Public Prosecution invoked the provisions of Articles 82, 352, 374/1-3, and
Article 72 bis of Decree Law No. 3 of 2003, as amended by Federal Decree Law No.
5 of 2008 concerning the telecommunications Sector and sought corresponding
legal penalties.
In
a session held on 29/11/2021, the court of first instance, in the presence,
sentenced the appellant to one month of imprisonment for the first charge, fined
five thousand dirhams for the second charge, and fined another five thousand
dirhams, with the additional measure of confiscating his mobile phone, which was
implicated in the case related to the third charge.
The
convicted appellant subsequently appealed this ruling in Appeal No. 1186/2021.
In a session dated 17/3/2022, the Court of Appeal, accepted the appeal in form,
and on the merits, amended the sentence for the first charge to a fine of five
thousand dirhams, confirming the appealed ruling as to the remaining
parts.
Unsatisfied
with this decision, the appellant filed the current appeal, contested by the
Public Prosecution, which submitted a memorandum urging the rejection of the
appeal and the confiscation of the insurance amount.
The
appellant bases his objection on alleged errors in the application and
interpretation of the law, deficiencies in reasoning, flaws in inference,
violation of documented facts, and breach of the right of defence. He contends
that the conviction lacks merit due to the absence of physical and moral
elements of the crime, his good faith, the lack of criminal intent, and the
questionable credibility of the witness's testimony, which renders it flawed and
requires its reversal.
Whereas
the objection in its entirety is inadmissible, since
It is
prescribed, as per the ruling of the Supreme Court, that the trial court, while
deriving its conviction of the proven crime, may rely on any evidence it finds
credible, provided that this evidence is grounded in documented facts.
The
court weighs the statements of witnesses, evaluates the circumstances
surrounding their testimonies and bases its ruling thereon, irrespective of
objections and suspicions raised against them. These powers are vested in the
trial court, affording it the discretion to assign value and significance to the
evidence it finds satisfactory.
By
adopting a witness's testimony, the court is considered to have meticulously
scrutinised all considerations advanced by the defence with the aim of refuting
them.
It
is established that insult, within the legal terminology, involves cursing
through the use of explicit words indicating such an act. This definition aligns
with the legal understanding that deems insult as any attribution of a defect or
an expression demeaning a person. The determination of the truth of the uttered
words is grounded in what the judge is convinced of to comprehend the reality of
the case.
According
to the law, the commission of the crime does not necessitate a specific intent
but rather suffices with a general intent, achieved through the offender's
awareness that matters involving insults degrade the person.
It
is prescribed, as per the ruling of the Supreme Court,
that
a confession
in criminal matters is a facet within the complete discretion of the trial court
to assess its validity and probative value. The court may accept a confession,
whether made during the evidence collection stage, within the investigations of
the Public Prosecution, or before the court, as long as it was provided freely
and consciously.
Given
the circumstances, and whereas
and whereas
the appealed ruling, confirmed by the contested ruling on substantive grounds,
meticulously addressed the case's facts, demonstrating insightful analysis and
foresight, convicted the appellant based on well-founded reasons. The conviction
was supported by credible evidence, notably the appellant's confession within
the evidence record wherein he admitted to informing the complainant about his
daughter's interaction with an individual named ".......," claiming friendship.
The appellant further acknowledged his communication with the victim until she
blocked him and admitted to maintaining multiple social media accounts.
Additionally, the complainant's statements included details about the accused
discussing the victim's honour, issuing threats to tarnish her reputation, and
bringing disgrace to her and her family fuelled by her decision to end their
relationship. In the course of the Public Prosecution's investigations, the
victim provided statements indicating that the accused initiated contact with
her through social media, establishing a friendship and making promises of
proposing to her. Subsequently, it became apparent to her that the accused was a
friend of her brother and an unsuitable individual. Following complications in
their relationship, she decided to terminate their relationship, prompting the
accused to resort to threats, blackmail, and the defamation of her
reputation.
During
the Public Prosecution's investigations, a witness .... reported overhearing the
accused informing the complainant that his daughter was socialising with his
friend, expressing intentions to invite the complainant to witness their
interaction. The witness also testified to the accused's statements about
seeking revenge on the victim's mother (the complainant's ex-wife) citing a
prior romantic involvement with her and his plans to arrange an encounter
between his friend and the complainant's daughter (the victim). The witness
..... affirmed that the accused, known to be a friend of the victim's daughter,
engaged in communication with her for a duration of two months, during which he
resorted to threats, defamation, and the tarnishing of her reputation.
Considering
the cumulative evidence, the ruling found the appellant guilty of the charges
against him and imposed the prescribed legal penalty. The conclusion drawn by
the appealed ruling, subsequently confirmed by the contested ruling on the basis
of sound reasoning and established facts, stands as a valid, and is supported by
well-documented facts.
Consequently, the
appellant's objection amounts to a mere substantive disagreement concerning the
trial court's authority to comprehend factual intricacies of the case and assess
the evidence presented therein. Such disagreements may not be brought or upheld
before this court, rendering the objection untenable. As a result, the appeal
for cassation is to be dismissed.