Cassation No

(1-5) Offenses related to Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances: “Penalties for the possession of narcotics and psychotropic substances with the intent of use and trafficking”. Causation of the Appeal: “Adequacy of confirming the appealed ruling on the basis of its reasons”. Court: “Competence of the trial court in understanding the case's reality, evaluating witness statements, assessing confessions, and considering statements made by one accused against another”. Confession: “Burden of proof for claims of coerced confessions”. Ruling: “Causation of the ruling, valid reasoning. Application of the most favourable law for the accused”.

(1) The Court of Appeal confirmed the appealed ruling based on its reasons, although left unstated. This suffices as referring to the reasons effectively stands in lieu of explicitly stating them, making it satisfactory.

(2) The trial court is authorised to grasp the reality of the case, evaluate its evidence, including witness statements, and weigh the confession of the accused and statements made by one accused against another, even if later retracted. This authority is contingent upon meeting certain conditions.

(3) The burden of proving that a confession was obtained under coercion lies with the party making the claim, being contrary to the fundamental principle.

(4) An illustrative example of valid causation for the confirmed appealed ruling is presented in proving the appellant's possession of narcotics and psychotropic substances for trafficking. This confirmation relies on the statements of one accused, the appellant's confession during investigations, the testimony of the incident officer, the criminal laboratory report, and the appellant's claim of coercion in making the confession is a substantive disagreement within the trial court's authority and may not be brought before the court.

(5) Objecting to the ruling on the grounds of a law violation is deemed valid, as Law No. 14 of 1995 was incorrectly applied instead of the more suitable Law No. 30 of 2021 concerning the appellant's abuse of psychotropic substances. The new law, offering a more favourable minimum penalty for the appellant, leads to a partial reversal of the ruling concerning the accusation of abusing psychotropic substances.

1- It is prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, that should the Court of Appeal elect to confirm the contested judgment based on its rationales, there exists no legal imperative requiring the articulation of said rationales within its judgment. Instead, a mere reference suffices, as such referencing serves as a substitute for explicit mention, signifying the court's acknowledgment and adoption of the reasons as emanating from its own deliberations.

2- It is prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, that the trial court has full authority to understand the reality in the case, scrutinize its evidence, including witness testimonies, assess their credibility, and place reliance upon those it deems most persuasive. The court adjudicates solely on the foundation of its comfort and trust in the evidence. It retains the prerogative to admit the confession of the accused, whether documented in the evidence collection report or the Public Prosecution's inquiry, provided it is content that the confession emanated from a voluntary, uncoerced, and conscious will. This holds true even if the accused subsequently recants the confession in cases of discretionary offences. Such discretionary authority remains immune from further review, as long as it does not hinge on an unsupported incident. The court is only obligated to articulate the truth it has ascertained and ground its judgment on valid and sufficient reasons. Furthermore, the court is empowered to rely on the statements of one accused against another, even if contained in a police report, in conjunction with other evidence. This principle extends to discretionary offences, given that such statements align with the extant evidence in the case and conform to the truth and reality therein. The subsequent retraction by the other accused does not alter this stance, as the court's confidence in the authenticity of the statements and their voluntary nature remains paramount in its assessment.

3- It is prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, that the burden of proof for the assertion that a confession was obtained under coercion lies with the party making such a claim. This is grounded in the principle that, within legal procedures, the fundamental presumption is one of validity and not in contravention thereof.

4- Given the circumstances, and whereas the appealed ruling, confirmed by the appealed ruling on the basis of its reasons, it has been established that the appellant's possession of narcotics and psychotropic substances was for the purpose of trafficking. This conclusion was drawn from the statements made by the first accused during the Public Prosecution's investigations, revealing that he acquired the seized narcotics from the third accused (the appellant) in exchange for a financial sum of 1,500 dirhams, along with a financial interest of 1,000 dirhams. The appellant, in his statements to the Public Prosecution, admitted to possessing narcotics for trafficking and abuse. He acknowledged being apprehended on 7/0/2020 while in possession of crystal meth and hashish, having delivered crystal meth to the first accused for a financial sum of 1,000 dirhams. The appellant claimed to have obtained the substances from an overseas contact through WhatsApp coordinates. He further confessed to supplying hashish to the first accused on multiple occasions for varying sums of money. The court accepted this confession as it was deemed to be the result of a free and voluntary will, devoid of coercion. The confession aligns with the testimony of the prosecution witness, Lieutenant [Name], from the Anti-Narcotics Department of Dubai Police during the Public Prosecution's investigations. The first accused reportedly informed the lieutenant that he obtained the seized materials from the third accused (the appellant), who was arrested in possession of crystal meth and hashish of different sizes. The forensic laboratory report substantiated that the seized substance was cannabis, known as cannabis and methamphetamine. Given the circumstances, and whereas trafficking in narcotics is within the discretionary authority of the trial judge, provided there is a proper evaluation. The contested ruling presented plausible evidence of the appellant's intent to traffic, as detailed above. The conclusions of the ruling, confirming the accusation against the appellant, are valid, grounded in documented facts, and sufficiently underpin the judgment, attesting to the validity of the underlying procedures. Hence, the appellant's plea that the confession resulted from coercion is considered a mere verbal assertion lacking evidence of authenticity. It amounts to a substantive disagreement regarding the trial court's authority to comprehend the case's reality and evaluate its evidence. Such objection raised by the appellant in all its aspects lacks a valid basis and is hereby dismissed.

5- Whereas this objection to the contested ruling, citing an error in the application of the law and a violation of the right of defence by neglecting the application of Federal Decree Law No. 30 of 2021, is substantiated. This law, being the most favourable to the accused, shall be applied, particularly in relation to the penalty for the crime of drug abuse. As for the penalty for trafficking, the new law maintains the same penalty for trafficking as the old law. Whereas it is proven in the documents that the Public Prosecution referred the case to the court under Law No. 14 of 1995 on Combatting Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances, which prescribes a minimum imprisonment of two years for the abuse of psychotropic substances. In contrast, Federal Decree-Law No. 30 of 2021, Article 41/1, Federal Decree-Law No. 30 of 2021 stipulates in its Article 41/1 that whoever abuses or... etc. shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of no less than three months or a fine of no less than twenty thousand dirhams and no more than one hundred thousand dirhams. Whereas it is evident that the new law reduces the maximum penalty applicable to the third charge against the appellant. Therefore, the more suitable legal framework for the appellant is the new law. The contested ruling, however, diverges from this by imposing a two-year imprisonment penalty for the third charge based on the repealed law, without considering the more favourable provisions of the new law. This constitutes a violation of the law, necessitating a partial reversal and remand for the application of the law that is more favourable concerning the punishment.

Whereas in the facts - as apparent pursuant to the perusal of the contested ruling and other documents - the Public Prosecution charged the appellant and others with offences committed prior to 7/9/2020 in the department of [location]. The charges against all accused are as follows:

1- Unlawful possession of hashish (also known as cannabis) for the purpose of trafficking, in circumstances not permitted by law, as detailed in the investigations.

2- Unlawful possession, with the intent to traffic, of a psychotropic substance (methamphetamine) in circumstances not permitted by law, as outlined in the investigations.

Specifically concerning the third defendant ....... (the appellant):

Unauthorised use of psychotropic substances (THC acid compound, the metabolite of THC, the active ingredient in cannabis), as revealed in the investigations.

The Public Prosecution sought their punishment in accordance with various articles of Federal Law No. 14 of 1995 on Combatting Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances, as amended, along with the First and Fifth Tables appended to the aforementioned law.

In a session held on 30/5/2021, the court of first instance, with both the first and third defendants (including the appellant) present, rendered a verdict. They were sentenced to life imprisonment for the first and second charges due to their association, and two years' imprisonment for the third charge. Additionally, the court ordered the deportation of the defendants from the state after serving their sentences, along with the confiscation of the narcotic and psychotropic substances and the involved vehicle.

The appellant and co-defendants contested the initial ruling through Appeals Nos. 687, 688, 689, 1064 of 2021. During the session on 19/4/2022, the Court of Appeal, with the second and third defendants present and the first defendant absent, rendered its decision as follows:

First: to accept Appeals Nos. 688, 689, 1064 of 2021 in form, and on the merits, to reject them all and to confirm the appealed ruling.

Second: the forfeiture of Appeal No. 687 of 2021 filed by [name].

Dissatisfied with this ruling, the appellant filed against it the present appeal in cassation. The Public Prosecution, in response, submitted a memorandum urging the rejection of the cassation.

Whereas the appellant raises objections to the contested ruling, citing deficiencies in causation, flaws in inference, and a breach of the right of defence. He contends that the conviction is based on general and unspecified reasons that do not align with the legislative intent regarding causation controls. Additionally, he asserts the absence of criminal intent and claims that his meritorious defences were overlooked. Furthermore, he argues that his confession, utilised in police inferences, was made under coercion, rendering it flawed and warranting a reversal.

Whereas this objection in its entirety is inadmissible, since It is prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, that should the Court of Appeal elect to confirm the contested judgment based on its rationales, there exists no legal imperative requiring the articulation of said rationales within its judgment. Instead, a mere reference suffices, as such referencing serves as a substitute for explicit mention, signifying the court's acknowledgment and adoption of the reasons as emanating from its own deliberations.

It is prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, that the trial court has full authority to understand the reality in the case, scrutinize its evidence, including witness testimonies, assess their credibility, and place reliance upon those it deems most persuasive. The court adjudicates solely on the foundation of its comfort and trust in the evidence.

It retains the prerogative to admit the confession of the accused, whether documented in the evidence collection report or the Public Prosecution's inquiry, provided it is content that the confession emanated from a voluntary, uncoerced, and conscious will. This holds true even if the accused subsequently recants the confession in cases of discretionary offences. Such discretionary authority remains immune from further review, as long as it does not hinge on an unsupported incident. The court is only obligated to articulate the truth it has ascertained and ground its judgment on valid and sufficient reasons.

Furthermore, the court is empowered to rely on the statements of one accused against another, even if contained in a police report, in conjunction with other evidence. This principle extends to discretionary offences, given that such statements align with the extant evidence in the case and conform to the truth and reality therein. The subsequent retraction by the other accused does not alter this stance, as the court's confidence in the authenticity of the statements and their voluntary nature remains paramount in its assessment.

It is prescribed that the burden of proof for the assertion that a confession was obtained under coercion lies with the party making such a claim. This is grounded in the principle that, within legal procedures, the fundamental presumption is one of validity and not in contravention thereof.

Given the circumstances, and whereas the appealed ruling, confirmed by the appealed ruling on the basis of its reasons, it has been established that the appellant's possession of narcotics and psychotropic substances was for the purpose of trafficking. This conclusion was drawn from the statements made by the first accused during the Public Prosecution's investigations, revealing that he acquired the seized narcotics from the third accused (the appellant) in exchange for a financial sum of 1,500 dirhams, along with a financial interest of 1,000 dirhams. The appellant, in his statements to the Public Prosecution, admitted to possessing narcotics for trafficking and abuse. He acknowledged being apprehended on 7/0/2020 while in possession of crystal meth and hashish, having delivered crystal meth to the first accused for a financial sum of 1,000 dirhams. The appellant claimed to have obtained the substances from an overseas contact through WhatsApp coordinates. He further confessed to supplying hashish to the first accused on multiple occasions for varying sums of money. The court accepted this confession as it was deemed to be the result of a free and voluntary will, devoid of coercion. The confession aligns with the testimony of the prosecution witness, Lieutenant [Name], from the Anti-Narcotics Department of Dubai Police during the Public Prosecution's investigations. The first accused reportedly informed the lieutenant that he obtained the seized materials from the third accused (the appellant), who was arrested in possession of crystal meth and hashish of different sizes. The forensic laboratory report substantiated that the seized substance was cannabis, known as cannabis and methamphetamine.

Given the circumstances, and whereas trafficking in narcotics is within the discretionary authority of the trial judge, provided there is a proper evaluation. The contested ruling presented plausible evidence of the appellant's intent to traffic, as detailed above. The conclusions of the ruling, confirming the accusation against the appellant, are valid, grounded in documented facts, and sufficiently underpin the judgment, attesting to the validity of the underlying procedures. Hence, the appellant's plea that the confession resulted from coercion is considered a mere verbal assertion lacking evidence of authenticity. It amounts to a substantive disagreement regarding the trial court's authority to comprehend the case's reality and evaluate its evidence. Such objection raised by the appellant in all its aspects lacks a valid basis and is hereby dismissed.

Whereas the appellant raises an objection to the contested ruling on the first ground, asserting an error in the application of the law and a breach of the right of defence. The objection contends that the court neglected the appellant's defence by failing to apply the new law on Combating Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances, namely Federal Decree Law No. 30 of 2021. The appellant argues that this law is more favourable to him and should be applied, rendering the ruling defective and necessitating its reversal.

Whereas this objection to the contested ruling is valid, particularly in relation to the penalty for the crime of drug abuse. As for the penalty for trafficking, the new law maintains the same penalty for trafficking as the old law.

Whereas it is proven in the documents that the Public Prosecution referred the case to the court under Law No. 14 of 1995 on Combatting Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances, which prescribes a minimum imprisonment of two years for the abuse of psychotropic substances. In contrast, Federal Decree-Law No. 30 of 2021, Article 41/1, Federal Decree-Law No. 30 of 2021 stipulates in its Article 41/1 that whoever abuses or... etc. shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of no less than three months or a fine of no less than twenty thousand dirhams and no more than one hundred thousand dirhams.