The Federal Supreme Council overturned a ruling that imposed a fine

A group fight leads 6 men and a woman to trial

The Federal Supreme Council supported the defendants ’appeal against the“ appeal ”ruling.

Emirates today

The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling that condemned six men and a woman accused of assault, insulting and destroying the property of others in a group quarrel, stating that the judgment was issued in absentia, and then they have the right to oppose it.

In the details, the Public Prosecution referred six men and a woman to criminal trial on charges of assaulting the safety of a person, insulting others, assaulting the property of others, and entering an inhabited place against the will of the owner.

The Court of Appeal decided to punish four of the defendants on the assault, insult and damage charges attributed to them, by fine each of them 2,000 dirhams for each charge, and to punish the accused with a fine of 2,000 dirhams each for the assault charge against them, and to punish the accused with a fine of 2000 dirhams for the charge of insult, and 2000 dirhams for the charge Entering the residence, and fining the accused 2000 dirhams for the charge of insult, and 1000 dirhams for the destruction charge, suspended for a period of three years starting from the date of the judgment becoming final, and the civil case was referred to the competent court, and the defendants did not consent to serving the judgment, so they appealed through cassation, and the Public Prosecution submitted a memorandum of opinion and requested In which the judgment is reversed with the referral.

The defense of the defendants said that the verdict made a mistake in applying the law and did not understand the reality when it ruled that the objections were not permissible because they were focused on the first instance ruling, as long as the objections were submitted by the defendants to the judgment of the Court of Appeal issued in absentia against them.

For its part, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the defendants ’appeal, explaining that Article 160/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that“ the accused in a felony or misdemeanor punishable by a fine other than a fine must attend in person. ”This indicates that the legislator stipulated that consideration be given to the The verdict in the presence of the accused in these crimes is for the accused to appear in person and not on his behalf at the court sessions in which the pleading took place, whether the judgment was issued or issued in another session, otherwise the judgment in absentia is subject to appeal from the date of its announcement.

She indicated that it is proven from the papers that the first instance judgment was issued in the presence of the Public Prosecutor and appealed, and it is proven from the session records and the judgment itself that the defendants did not attend any of the appeal sessions, and their attorney attended, and therefore the judgment is in fact a judgment in absentia, and it may be challenged by the appeal.

It stated that the defendants submitted their opposition to the judgment in absentia on the date specified by law, and the court issuing the judgment should have examined the subject matter of those objections due to the fulfillment of their conditions, while the judgment of appeal ruled that the objections were not permissible, which necessitated its revocation.

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