The Federal Supreme Court referred a case in which a woman accused of insulting and threatening a man over the phone to the Court of Appeal, for further review, as she accepted the Public Prosecution's appeal against an appeal ruling that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.
In the details, the Public Prosecution referred a woman to the trial, facing three charges, which are insulting a person by phone, using the communication services to abuse, annoy and hurt the feelings of the victim, by sending him messages containing insults, and threatening him to commit a felony against him, demanding to punish her .
A first-degree court ruled in attendance to convict the defendant and punish her with a fine of 1,000 dirhams for the charges she was charged with on the subject of the first and second charges for engagement, and fined 1,000 dirhams for what was assigned to her on the subject of the third charge, and obliging her with judicial fees, then the Court of Appeal ruled to cancel the first verdict and reaffirm the court’s lack of jurisdiction spatially The lawsuit and the jurisdiction of Dubai courts in its consideration.
The Public Prosecution appealed this ruling, explaining that the ruling was mistaken in the application of the law, since the crime of insulting is considered one of the continuous crimes in which it is considered a place of the crime every place it carries on if it continues, noting that it is established from the papers that the complainant discovered the incident of insulting in Sharjah, and from Then, the Sharjah Court is competent to hear the case, and the ruling has erred in applying the law to the extent that it must be reversed.
For its part, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal of the Public Prosecution, referring to the text of Article (142) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that jurisdiction must be in the place where the crime occurred, except that if the crime continues, it is considered a place for the crime every place in which it continues, according to a text Article (143) of the same law.
The court pointed out that what was fixed from the papers, and what the complainant said in the investigations that he had discovered the incident of insulting in Sharjah, which would win the crime as a continuation status, concluding that the appeal judgment did not adhere to this consideration, as he ruled that the court did not have the jurisdiction to place the case in consideration of the case, so his judiciary may have been Sahih violated the law in order to veto the referral.