How Ezz law firm’s lawyers in Dubai with Abu Dhabi lawyers could acquit client from charges of detaining female against its will.

Our client is a famous business man working in hotel and entertainment field, and one day while he was coming from Dubai to Abu Dhabi the police called him to come to police station where he was detained and his secretary the manager for the staff accommodation for serious charges for being As both on 30/10/000 illegally detained and deprived the victim / Mrs.00000 from freedom as they put her in the staff accommodation and tightly closed the doors and prevented her to go out because she is a female as shown in the investigations.

The informer is Mr. 000, who reported on 30/10/00 that his wife / the victim / Mrs.   is detained in her residence place specified to her and to other female workers in the hotel and its Night Club and she is not allowed to exit. Claiming that accused person / Mrs.0000 – Our client closed the door of this .

The police force moved and took the public prosecution permission and exited the victim from that place

The Public Prosecution brought them to trial to court and requested to punish them under the Islamic Rules and Articles 121-1 and 344-1 clause 3, 5 of the Federal Penal Code No 3 of 1987 as amended by the Federal Law No 34 of 2005.

Our client stayed in Jail for six months and court refused any demand for bail release.

After our criminal expert lawyers in Abu Dhabi and Dubai collaboration to resolve this case they could reach the verdict of acquittal from charges.

Full story

 

Judicial Department

In the name of HH

Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan

President of United Arab Emirates/ Ruler of Emirate of Abu Dhabi

___________________________________________________________________________________

Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance

In the session held

On 24/ 03/ 2016

We, the Judges of Criminal Circuit – Abu Dhabi Court of First instance

 

Have considered the case No (00000000000) Abu Dhabi filed on 15/12/2015

In presence of:

000

000

000

Plaintiff: Public Prosecution

Accused:

  1. Our Client
  2. Our Client

Charge: Illegal detention and privation from freedom

Have issued the following judgment:-

Whereas the Public Prosecution accused :

  • Mr.                                 national
  • Mrs……..           national

 

As both on 30/10/2015 illegally detained and deprived the victim / Mrs.00000 from freedom as they put her in the property described in the court record and tightly closed the doors and prevented her to go out because she is a female as shown in the investigations.

The Public Prosecution brought them to trial in this court and requested to punish them under the Islamic Rules and Articles 121-1 and 344-1 clause 3, 5 of the Federal Penal Code No 3 of 1987 as amended by the Federal Law No 34 of 2005.

Whereas the case has been deliberated at sessions as contained in the court records in which both accused persons have been brought from their prison and advocates attended with the accused persons. The Public Prosecution read the referral order and the confirmation witnesses testimonies in their presence. The court asked the accused persons about the charges made against them, but they denied the same. Their advocates requested to hear two denial witnesses who are : Mr.sss and Mr.000. The court accepted the request and summoned the witnesses and heard the first witness testimony who said the victim/ there are rules and regulations govern the exit and entry of female workers in the hotel and there are specified dates that should not be violated. She added that she is aware of the victim work nature is a dancer in night club managed by the first accused person. The second witness said that he is assigned to transport the dancers from their accommodation to the workplace

Then, the court heard the Public Prosecution that insisted on its requests contained in the referral order. The advocates pleaded with the accused persons and requested acquittal for them and submitted the defense statement. Based upon above mentioned, the court has resolved to issue the judgment in today session: –

The Court

Having heard the pleading and reviewed papers submitted and legally deliberated the case:-

Whereas the facts are summarized as Mr. 0000000000000 reported on 30/10/2015 that his wife / the victim / Mrs.   is detained in her residence place specified to her and to other female workers in the hotel and its Night Club and she is not allowed to exit. The accused person / Mrs.0000 C closed the door of this housing implementing the instructions of the accused person/ Mr.ssss. The police force moved after the public prosecution permission and exited the victim from that place.

The accused person / Mr. Th… was asked in the evidence records and public prosecution investigations, he denied the charge made against him. He said that the victim and her husband accused him because the former refused to work as a dancer despite the fact that she knew that before she came to the country and it is initially agreed with her. He also said that she was doing the same work before, them she married the reporter and she left the country for a period and then she requested to come back to work. he added because that a dispute arose between the victim and her husband / the reporter she rejected to work as a dancer. So, the person who recruited her / called/ S….. asked her to pay the recruitment costs, but the victim and her husband rejected that. He added that this report is an attempt from them to exert pressure upon him because of non-payment of the recruitment costs. He added that he prevented the female workers in the hotel and night club numbered 35 ladies to exit their housing after the work unless it is necessary, it is only a security and safety precaution and to avoid troubles. All workers including the victim are fully aware of these rules regulating the housing relating to the work. he finally insisted that the accusation is false.

In addition, the accused person/ Mrs.. N, also denied the charge made against her when she is asked in the evidence records and the public prosecution investigations. She added that even she closed the main external door of the villa based upon the regulation and rules of exit and entry of female workers in the housing relating to the hotel and the night club in which they work and issued to her from the accused person/ Mr. T in his capacity as the supervisor and officer on charge for this matter. She also added the victim has enjoyed full freedom in the housing except the exit such as other said female workers.

Whereas it is determined that the illegal detention and deprivation crime pursuant to Article No 344/3,2/5.6 of the Federal Penal Code is achieved when its both elements are achieved. The first element is the material element that is available if the offenders committed an act of abduction; holding; detention, imprisonment, or deprivation from freedom. The abduction is to move the victim from his/her place or any other place with intent to hide him/her from his/her environment and to separate him/her from his/her relatives. The holding is to grab the victim and to restrict his/her body movement and to prevent him/her from going in or out against his/her will for a short or long period. The imprisonment is to deprive the victim from his/her freedom for a period of time. The deprivation is any aggression made against the personal freedom. It is not necessary that all material acts should be made together, but only one is sufficient. The second element is the criminal intention that is the offender intentionally committed the acts above referenced and the offenders are aware that they illegally deprived the victim from his/her freedom.

The legislator provides in the paragraphs in Article 344 Federal Penal Code, aggravated circumstances including the second paragraph if the abduction act is associated with a use of force, grave bodily harm, or physical torment such as hitting the victim by the offenders and made injuries and including if the deprivation from freedom made by two or more persons. In addition, if the purpose of the deprivation is a revenge act from the victim. The Supreme Federal Court, challenge No 299 of 24 session 5-6-2004 – 26.

Whereas the public prosecution supported this charge against the accused persons with the victim and her husband testimonies and the testimony of the officer / Mr.sss who existed the victim from the female workers accommodation above –mentioned.

It is determined in the papers that the victim testimonies in the evidence record and then in the public prosecution are inconsistent in many points. As she said in the evidence records that her stuff has been taken and phone in the night club in 000000 hotel. Then, in the public prosecution she said that she went to the room in which her phone is inside the accommodation and took it and called her husband via this phone and she sent him the location of the villa – the accommodation place via WhatsApp social media application in order to release her- as she said- . In addition that her husband said in the investigation that his wife kept calling him and telling him with the developments through mobile phone calls. As found in the officer testimony who released her and exited her from the villa that she was waiving from a window in the second floor and she used the mobile phone light to locate her place. Her husband testimonies are also inconsistent when he said in the police report that he did not receive her wife/ the victim in Dubai Airport because she told him that her sponsor will provide her with a transport means to bring her to Abu Dhabi. While he said in the public prosecution that he was surprised that her sponsor received and accompanied her without his knowledge.

Therefore, the court suspected to the validity of such testimonies and in circumstance    it can be accepted. Especially, the officer who released her confirmed that she was found in a room with open door. In addition there was another woman found that she did not go to work because she was sick and she did not affected with the closed door.

In addition, it is established to the court that the labor permits issued to the victim and other women include that she is a dancer which means that the victim knew her work nature when she came to the country. Furthermore, the accused persons crack of case’s dawn to the end. The first accused person pleaded that this accusation is false and vicious and it is an attempt from the victim and her husband to exert pressure upon him and the person recruited the victim because she failed to pay the recruitment costs. The first accused person also said that he prevented the female workers in the hotel and night club whose number is 35 women to exit the accommodation after the work except for necessary matters is only for security and safety purposes and to avoid troubles. In addition, all female workers including the victims are fully aware of these rules and regulations in the accommodation relating to the workplace. He also insisted in many points that cancels the criminal intention to detain the victim- he insisted that he has the right and -the second accused person who received and implemented his instructions for all female workers and with their satisfaction.

Therefore, the court suspected the testimonies of the victim and her husband and the court finds such testimonies are mere lies and predetermined between them in order to appear as a criminal act in order not to pay the recruitment costs after she refused to work.

Having considered the case papers and balanced the confirmation evidences brought by the public prosecution and the denial evidences brought by the defense, the court therefore dismisses such accusation and finds baseless.

Based upon the above-mentioned, and the papers are free from any evidences or proofs sufficient to confirm the accusation against the accused persons in the case after the court reviewed the testimonies of the victim and her husband as above described. Especially both the victim and her husband voluntarily waived the report although they previously said in the public prosecution investigations that they have been subject to pressures and threats in order to waive the report but they rejected such threats and they did not waive the report that time.

It is legally determined that it is sufficient that the judge does not convince in the validity of the accusation in order to judge the acquittal of the accused person. The adjudication is entirely at the sole discretion of the judge as long as it is apparently the judge has a full knowledge of the case and the adjudication is based upon reasonable reasons. “Abu Dhabi Cassation – Challenge No 8 of 2013 penal cassation – session 18/11/2013. Then, based upon the above, the court shall adjudicate the acquittal of the accused persons under Article No 211 of the penal procedures.

Therefore,

The Court judges in pressentia:

  • Acquittal of each of Mr.T and Mrs. N from the charges

Secretary                                          Criminal Circuit