The trial of a young man and his fiancée for drug use

A criminal appeals court in Ras Al Khaimah has heard a plea from a young Gulf defendant accused of refraining from giving a urine sample for drug testing to the competent authorities and facilitating the use of his second fiancé.

The court of first instance sentenced the first defendant to two years in prison for refusing to give a urine sample, and five years for the charge of facilitating drug use by the second accused, and the court also convicted his fiancée with two years in prison for drug use and driving a vehicle under the influence of narcotics.

The defendant confessed before the court to refrain from giving the urine sample to the competent authorities for personal reasons, pointing out that he saw the defendant sitting in her vehicle unconscious, and that he told him that under the influence of narcotic substances (Crystal), went to a pharmacy, and bought an injection and injected with an anesthetic a day before the arrest .

The defendant confessed before the court to driving a vehicle under the influence of narcotics, and stated that she had used crystal before reaching the beach in Ras Al Khaimah, and that she met the accused the day before they were caught, and injected with narcotic.

The lawyer for the first defendant, Mohammed Ibrahim, argued before the court that the arrest of his client by the competent authorities was null and void because the public prosecutor's permission was issued one hour after his arrest.

He explained that his client received a phone call from his second fiancée, asking him to come to her house to meet him. He responded to her request and went to her and found her sitting in her vehicle in case of fainting as a result of taking drugs.

He explained that his client took her by vehicle to the hospital, and then went to the men's section of the hospital to check on his father, who is being treated in the hospital, without having anything to do with drug use, pointing out that his client refused to give a sample of urine to examine drugs to the competent authorities, as he suffers from a mental illness. There was no justification for giving them the sample, as no drugs were used.

He pointed out that the contradiction of the statements of the second defendant appeared through the investigations, where the surveillance cameras installed in the pharmacy did not monitor the entry of his client or buy any injections, which denies the fact that the first accused facilitated the use of the second accused drug.