Ras Al Khaimah Misdemeanor sentenced him to two months in prison

A cleaner spying on a man and his wife in the bedroom

A (Gulf) inmate, while he was with his wife in a suite in a hotel, was surprised by a cleaner who was snooping on him, so he caught him and handed him over to the competent authorities that investigated the case and referred the accused worker to the Public Prosecution, and from there to the Misdemeanor Court, which ruled his two months imprisonment.

The victim filed a civil lawsuit before a full civil court to demand civil compensation on the hotel and the accused for the psychological damage suffered by him and his wife as a result of the defendant's snooping on them even though he paid additional sums for more privacy.

The indictment states that the accused violated the sanctity of a place, a residence, and attachments to the behavior of the victim, and had made an order that would tempt him to commit a sin by eavesdropping on the victim and his wife, and assaulted the sanctity of their private lives by peering at them.

A civil court ruled that the accused and the hotel management were obligated to pay the victim 50,000 dirhams in compensation for the moral damages that had befallen him and obligated them to pay fees and attorney fees.

The details of the case stated that the victim rented a villa at the hotel in which the accused worked, and he paid the rent owed in addition to an amount for the privacy of the place, but he was surprised by the defendant sneaking into them during a "legal retreat", so he caught it.

The verdict stated that the court has established an element of error in the right of the accused by breaching the privacy of the victim while he is with his wife in the villa owned by and rented from a hotel, and that the accused snooped on the victim and his wife by peering at them while they were inside that villa, and that the ruling issued by The Criminal Court has convicted the accused of breaching the privacy of the victim and his wife and eavesdropping on them.

He explained that the criminal judgment has become final and final because it is not challenged, according to the testimony of the victim, which binds the court with the authority of the criminal judgment in what has been decided upon, and its dismissal was necessary if the accused was proven wrong in breaching the privacy and violating the privacy of the accused.

The judgment added that the accused caused harm to the victim, and there was a causal link between the error and the harm that occurred to the victim, and the elements of tort that required compensation were present, and the court would only have to assess the extent of the harm and compensate him.

He referred to the victim's demand to pay him a financial and moral compensation for the damages suffered by him, his wife and children, as the victim is only entitled to claim the damages sustained by him alone, as he did not initiate the case on his own behalf or as an attorney for his wife or in his capacity for his children, as the court is only exposed during the judgment For the damages sustained by the victim alone, excluding his wife and children.

She pointed out that with regard to material and moral compensation, the decree of the judiciary is that the judgment for compensation for material damage is a breach of the financial interest of the injured, and that the damage is realized if it has actually occurred or that its occurrence in the future is inevitable.

She added that the papers were devoid of evidence that the victim suffered any material damage as a result of the accused’s action, and that he did not mention damages in the case document that could be considered material damage, so the court refuses to judge him for material damage, and as for compensation for moral damage, the court has established that the victim has suffered moral harm. As a result of the eavesdropping on him and his wife, and that this caused him psychological pain when the accused violated his privacy, and what happened to him as a result of his dissatisfaction with that voyeurism and spoilage of the time he devoted to relaxing with his wife and feeling sad.

He added that the court established that the accused was working for the hotel in which the incident occurred, and that he was under his supervision and direction, and that the accused was in charge of his work at the time of the commission of the incident, and he would not have reached the villa that the victim and his family had rented had it not been for the nature of his work as a cleaner in the hotel, and with him. The court shall oblige the hotel and the accused to jointly pay 50 thousand dirhams in compensation to the victim for the damages incurred by him, and obligate them to pay expenses and attorney fees.

• A "civil court" obligated the accused and the hotel to pay 50 thousand dirhams in moral compensation to the victim.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news