(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.

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.

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.

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.