The Court of Cassation in Abu Dhabi ruled to overturn an appellate ruling to punish a young Gulf man with a fine of 17 thousand and 500 dirhams, and to compel him to perform community service for a month, with the suspension of work with a driving license for three months, and the confiscation of his vehicle, after being convicted of six charges, including driving a vehicle at a speed that is more than permitted. With 80 km per hour, deviation towards the police vehicle and a threat to the life of those inside it, the court ruled to reduce the fine to 10,000 dirhams for the first three charges.
The Public Prosecution had assigned the accused six charges, including intentionally committing an act that would endanger the life of the victim (a policeman) by straying his vehicle towards the police vehicle more than once, if he was on the main road, not observing traffic and traffic signs and rules, and driving his vehicle recklessly In a manner that poses a danger to road users, paradigm driving, driving at high speed and recklessly in a form that is dangerous for road users, by exceeding the speed limit by more than 80 km / hour, and refusing to obey the order issued to him by a public official (policeman) , He refused to stand without an acceptable excuse, driving without a board Numbers front, and not lighting the vehicle lights between sunset and sunrise.
Al Ain Traffic Court ruled in the presence of the convict and convicting him with a fine of 7,000 dirhams on the first charge, 7,000 dirhams on the second charge, 5,000 dirhams on the third charge, and 3000 dirhams on the fourth charge, and obliging him to perform community service for a month on the fifth and sixth charges, with the suspension of work for a period Three months and vehicle confiscation.
The young man appealed the verdict, and the Al Ain Appeals Court ruled in absentia to accept the appeal in form, and in the matter amended the appellate ruling by only fining the appellant 500 dirhams on the third charge and supporting him in the otherwise, and obliging the appellant the due fee, the verdict did not obtain the consent of the convict, so he appealed to the Court of Cassation, while The Cassation Prosecution filed a memorandum of opinion, which concluded, at the end, of the contested ruling.
The appellant appealed to the contested ruling, mistake in applying the law, failure to cause, corruption in reasoning, and violation of the right to defense, and that failure to obey the police orders was the result of dread and the speed stabilizer is not available, and criminal intent is not available, and that the court did not call an engineering expert to inspect the vehicle to achieve his defense What defects the judgment and needs to be reversed.
The court ruled that the contested judgment was partially reversed, with respect to the punishment imposed on him for each of the first, second and third charges, and that the appellant was fined 7,000 dirhams on these charges of engagement, 3000 dirhams on the fourth charge, refused to appeal otherwise, and obliged him to charge and confiscate the insurance amount.