The Fujairah Court of Appeals considered a case in which a husband residing in the country as a visitor was accused of verbally threatening his wife with the threatening words of “Harm you in the street, harass you”, while the Public Prosecution demanded that he be punished.
In detail, an (Arab) wife submitted a report stating that her husband threatened her verbally, represented by “Your me on the street, he will deport you to your country.” The case was referred to the Public Prosecution, which demanded that the accused be punished by the Federal Penal Code, Article No. 353. By asking the court of the accused about the accusation against him, He said that he resides in the state as a visitor, and that the victim is his wife, and she was residing in her country, but she came to the state some time ago, stressing that once the period of his stay that was according to his place of work expired, he did not join any other work, and his current residence in the state is considered as a visitor.
For his part, the attorney entrusted with the accused demanded his innocence, given that he is not residing in the state and is currently in it as a visitor, noting that the court that has jurisdiction over him is the one in whose circuit the defendant’s domicile, place of residence, or place of work is located, stressing that his client does not He owns any job in the country, and once his work visa expires, his residence in the country ends.
In addition, the court of first instance in presence acquitted the accused of the accusation against him, but the Public Prosecution challenged the judiciary with the appeal presented under a report within the legally prescribed time, and it fulfilled all the conditions, so it was accepted in form.
For its part, the Court of Appeal decided that the appeal was held on the legally prescribed date, and fulfilled its conditions, so it is acceptable in form, and on the subject of the appeal, it is decided to judge “that it does not enrich the court if it referred to the reasons for the appealed judgment as long as it found them sufficient to carry out its judgment, and the appeal did not come.” With something new that affects this judiciary, and since the appealed verdict encompassed the incident and the evidence for its proof with foresight and insight, and decided the acquittal of the accused in accordance with the correct law,” the court decides to support him based on his reasons, and accordingly the court decided to accept the appeal in form and support the appealed ruling.
The Fujairah Court of Appeals considered a case in which a husband residing in the country as a visitor was accused of verbally threatening his wife with the threatening words of “Harm you in the street, harass you”, while the Public Prosecution demanded that he be punished.
In detail, an (Arab) wife submitted a report stating that her husband threatened her verbally, represented by “Your me on the street, he will deport you to your country.” The case was referred to the Public Prosecution, which demanded that the accused be punished by the Federal Penal Code, Article No. 353. By asking the court of the accused about the accusation against him, He said that he resides in the state as a visitor, and that the victim is his wife, and she was residing in her country, but she came to the state some time ago, stressing that once the period of his stay that was according to his place of work expired, he did not join any other work, and his current residence in the state is considered as a visitor.
For his part, the attorney entrusted with the accused demanded his innocence, given that he is not residing in the state and is currently in it as a visitor, noting that the court that has jurisdiction over him is the one in whose circuit the defendant’s domicile, place of residence, or place of work is located, stressing that his client does not He owns any job in the country, and once his work visa expires, his residence in the country ends.
In addition, the court of first instance in presence acquitted the accused of the accusation against him, but the Public Prosecution challenged the judiciary with the appeal presented under a report within the legally prescribed time, and it fulfilled all the conditions, so it was accepted in form.
For its part, the Court of Appeal decided that the appeal was held on the legally prescribed date, and fulfilled its conditions, so it is acceptable in form, and on the subject of the appeal, it is decided to judge “that it does not enrich the court if it referred to the reasons for the appealed judgment as long as it found them sufficient to carry out its judgment, and the appeal did not come.” With something new that affects this judiciary, and since the appealed verdict encompassed the incident and the evidence for its proof with foresight and insight, and decided the acquittal of the accused in accordance with the correct law,” the court decides to support him based on his reasons, and accordingly the court decided to accept the appeal in form and support the appealed ruling.
The Fujairah Court of Appeals considered a case in which a husband residing in the country as a visitor was accused of verbally threatening his wife with the threatening words of “Harm you in the street, harass you”, while the Public Prosecution demanded that he be punished.
In detail, an (Arab) wife submitted a report stating that her husband threatened her verbally, represented by “Your me on the street, he will deport you to your country.” The case was referred to the Public Prosecution, which demanded that the accused be punished by the Federal Penal Code, Article No. 353. By asking the court of the accused about the accusation against him, He said that he resides in the state as a visitor, and that the victim is his wife, and she was residing in her country, but she came to the state some time ago, stressing that once the period of his stay that was according to his place of work expired, he did not join any other work, and his current residence in the state is considered as a visitor.
For his part, the attorney entrusted with the accused demanded his innocence, given that he is not residing in the state and is currently in it as a visitor, noting that the court that has jurisdiction over him is the one in whose circuit the defendant’s domicile, place of residence, or place of work is located, stressing that his client does not He owns any job in the country, and once his work visa expires, his residence in the country ends.
In addition, the court of first instance in presence acquitted the accused of the accusation against him, but the Public Prosecution challenged the judiciary with the appeal presented under a report within the legally prescribed time, and it fulfilled all the conditions, so it was accepted in form.
For its part, the Court of Appeal decided that the appeal was held on the legally prescribed date, and fulfilled its conditions, so it is acceptable in form, and on the subject of the appeal, it is decided to judge “that it does not enrich the court if it referred to the reasons for the appealed judgment as long as it found them sufficient to carry out its judgment, and the appeal did not come.” With something new that affects this judiciary, and since the appealed verdict encompassed the incident and the evidence for its proof with foresight and insight, and decided the acquittal of the accused in accordance with the correct law,” the court decides to support him based on his reasons, and accordingly the court decided to accept the appeal in form and support the appealed ruling.
The Fujairah Court of Appeals considered a case in which a husband residing in the country as a visitor was accused of verbally threatening his wife with the threatening words of “Harm you in the street, harass you”, while the Public Prosecution demanded that he be punished.
In detail, an (Arab) wife submitted a report stating that her husband threatened her verbally, represented by “Your me on the street, he will deport you to your country.” The case was referred to the Public Prosecution, which demanded that the accused be punished by the Federal Penal Code, Article No. 353. By asking the court of the accused about the accusation against him, He said that he resides in the state as a visitor, and that the victim is his wife, and she was residing in her country, but she came to the state some time ago, stressing that once the period of his stay that was according to his place of work expired, he did not join any other work, and his current residence in the state is considered as a visitor.
For his part, the attorney entrusted with the accused demanded his innocence, given that he is not residing in the state and is currently in it as a visitor, noting that the court that has jurisdiction over him is the one in whose circuit the defendant’s domicile, place of residence, or place of work is located, stressing that his client does not He owns any job in the country, and once his work visa expires, his residence in the country ends.
In addition, the court of first instance in presence acquitted the accused of the accusation against him, but the Public Prosecution challenged the judiciary with the appeal presented under a report within the legally prescribed time, and it fulfilled all the conditions, so it was accepted in form.
For its part, the Court of Appeal decided that the appeal was held on the legally prescribed date, and fulfilled its conditions, so it is acceptable in form, and on the subject of the appeal, it is decided to judge “that it does not enrich the court if it referred to the reasons for the appealed judgment as long as it found them sufficient to carry out its judgment, and the appeal did not come.” With something new that affects this judiciary, and since the appealed verdict encompassed the incident and the evidence for its proof with foresight and insight, and decided the acquittal of the accused in accordance with the correct law,” the court decides to support him based on his reasons, and accordingly the court decided to accept the appeal in form and support the appealed ruling.