The court determines that accusations are influenced by family strife and lack supporting proof. Dubai: The prosecution failed to prove the components of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore the Al Ain Court of First Instance cleared a 28-year-old Gulf national of reckless endangerment. At a final hearing on December 10, 2025, the Third Misdemeanour Circuit rendered its decision. Citing Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which mandates that any question be resolved in favor of the accused, the court determined that the charge under Article 399(1) of the UAE Crimes and Penalties Law was not proven.
Charges dropped
The guy was charged by the prosecution of purposefully stopping a car and abruptly braking following a child visitation handover, reportedly endangering the complainant, his ex-wife, and her friend. The Public Prosecution argued that the alleged maneuver happened soon after the participants left an authorized visitation center in Al Ain and requested the maximum penalty for endangering life. However, the court determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish the material elements of the offense. Submissions and the defense team Mohammed Al Awami, Dr. Alia Al Ameri, and Suad Mohammed of Al Awami Al Mansoori Law Firm and Legal Consultancy defended the defendant. The defense contended that a bitter custody issue and current family litigation should be taken into consideration when evaluating the criminal charge. Attorneys questioned the complaint’s timeliness, pointing out that it followed unfavorable custody decisions and was submitted via a smart application three days after the claimed incident. They drew attention to discrepancies in the complainant’s and her companion’s testimonies, especially with regard to the driver’s identification, the car in question, and whether or not a child was there.
The defense further argued that the accused did not drive on the day in issue and that, following the handover of the child, he traveled in a different direction to attend work. The grandfather had picked up the child in a different car, according to evidence presented to the court. The attorney contended that her actions amounted to a malicious lawsuit and a false report, both of which had legal repercussions.
The case’s background
The lawsuit was based on a disagreed visitation schedule at an authorized center in Al Ain, according to court documents. After leaving the center, the complainant said that her ex-husband pursued her vehicle and drove recklessly, including abrupt braking. She further reported to detectives that there had been a verbal altercation during the transfer, apparently involving the exchange of insults. Parts of her story were corroborated by her companion, who later admitted under interrogation that she wasn’t sure if a youngster was sitting in the front of the car—a claim that the prosecution used to prove risk. According to court documents, the father had previously been granted custody of the couple’s four children after a judge found neglect and expressed worry for the welfare of the children. The mother’s interactions were restricted to visits under supervision. Only one child showed up for the visitation on the day of the event; the others apparently declined to go with her, which caused conflict and a verbal altercation inside the center.
Absence of confirmation
The court observed that the accusation was not supported by any technical or objective evidence. Despite the presence of cameras at the site, there was no traffic police report, no car inspection records, no proof of damage or injuries, and no security film from the visitor center. Inconsistencies in witness testimony were also noted by judges, such as ambiguity over the identity of the driver, the vehicle’s description, and the defendant’s presence at the scene.
The logic of the court
The court emphasized in its ruling that criminal convictions must be founded on certainty rather than possibility or suspicion. It restated that if the evidence does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted under Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Law.
The court determined that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof because of the contradictions in the stories, the absence of supporting evidence, and the contentious context of a custody dispute. The criminal proceedings came to an end when the defendant was found not guilty of any crimes.
