Can a person be convicted of assault for injuring someone while attempting to stop an attack? A case before the Ajman Court of Appeal in October 2026 has brought this question into focus. The court acquitted a 22-year-old man accused of assaulting his father, relying on CCTV footage that supported his claim that he had acted to stop an attack rather than initiate one.
The case illustrates how surveillance footage, witness testimony and the sequence of events can influence the outcome of criminal proceedings. It also raises a wider legal question: when does the use of force amount to a criminal offence, and when can it be justified as legitimate self-defence under UAE law?
How CCTV Changed the Outcome
The incident took place at the family home in Ajman following a disagreement over the withdrawal of a criminal complaint. According to the case account, the father entered a room carrying a stick and struck his son several times. The son subsequently took the stick away from his father and broke it, maintaining that he had done so to prevent the violence from continuing.
The father sustained injuries and accused his son of assault. Both faced charges arising from the incident, and the case proceeded through several stages of litigation. After the son was convicted on appeal, the Federal Supreme Court overturned the decision and referred the matter back for reconsideration.
On reviewing the evidence, a new appellate panel found that the CCTV footage supported the son's account of what had happened. The judges concluded that taking the stick away was an attempt to stop the attack, rather than an act of aggression. The court consequently acquitted the son, finding that the evidence did not establish his criminal responsibility.
The ruling demonstrates that an injury sustained during a confrontation does not, by itself, establish that the person responsible for causing it has committed a criminal offence. The sequence of events, the circumstances prompting the response and the available evidence must all be considered when determining criminal liability.
What Does UAE Law Say About Self-Defence?
The principal legislation governing criminal responsibility in this area is Federal Decree-Law No. 31 of 2021 on the Crimes and Penalties Law, as amended. Article 58 addresses legitimate defence and sets out circumstances in which conduct undertaken to protect oneself or another person may be treated as lawful rather than criminal.
The application of this defence depends on the circumstances and the statutory conditions. The threat must justify intervention, and the response must be assessed against the nature and immediacy of the danger. The availability of assistance from the competent authorities, the possibility of avoiding the threat by other means and the proportionality of the response are also relevant considerations under the applicable legal framework.
For example, disarming someone who is actively attacking another person may constitute legitimate defence, depending on the circumstances. By contrast, striking the attacker after the danger has passed or pursuing them to inflict punishment would ordinarily be difficult to justify on that basis. Such conduct could be regarded as retaliation rather than an attempt to prevent harm.
Courts must examine the facts of each case rather than apply a single rule to every confrontation. The seriousness of the threat, the timing of the response and the degree of force used can all influence whether the conditions for legitimate defence have been satisfied. An action that is justified during an ongoing attack may be viewed differently once the immediate danger has ended.
Can You Defend Another Person Under UAE Law?
Legitimate defence is not confined to protecting oneself. Article 58 also recognises defence of others, allowing the relevant legal principles to apply when a person intervenes to protect someone facing a threat. This can be particularly significant during domestic disputes, family altercations or situations in which a bystander attempts to stop an assault.
However, intervening on behalf of a relative or another person does not automatically provide immunity from criminal charges. The circumstances must still satisfy the requirements of the law, including the need for the intervention and the relationship between the force used and the threat faced.
The central distinction is between action intended to prevent immediate harm and conduct motivated by revenge after the danger has passed. Establishing that distinction requires an assessment of what happened before, during and after the confrontation, rather than an examination of the resulting injuries alone.
The Role of CCTV and Other Evidence
The Ajman proceedings underline the importance of objective evidence in assault cases. CCTV footage helped the court assess the sequence of events and determine whether the son's actions were consistent with his claim that he had attempted to stop the attack. Such recordings can provide context that may be missing from the accounts of the people involved.
Other potentially relevant evidence includes mobile phone recordings, medical reports, photographs of injuries, witness statements and messages exchanged around the time of the incident. Each item must be assessed for its reliability and consistency with the wider evidential picture. The admissibility of recordings and other material, as well as the circumstances in which they were obtained, may also affect their use in court.
Medical reports can establish the nature and extent of an injury, but they do not necessarily determine who caused it, how the incident unfolded or whether the conduct amounted to a criminal offence. Those questions require the court to consider medical findings alongside witness accounts, recordings and other relevant material.
What Should You Do After an Altercation?
Anyone involved in a violent confrontation should first move to safety and distance themselves from any continuing threat. Where necessary, they should contact the police and seek medical assistance. It may also be important to identify witnesses and preserve potentially relevant CCTV recordings, photographs, messages and other evidence before they are lost or deleted.
A claim of self-defence does not guarantee acquittal. Its success depends on the evidence, the circumstances of the incident and whether the applicable statutory requirements have been met. Those involved should seek legal advice promptly and take care not to alter, delete or selectively present material that could be relevant to the investigation.
The burden of proof must also be distinguished from the practical need to produce evidence supporting a defence. A defendant does not automatically bear the ultimate burden of proving self-defence in every criminal case. The applicable evidential rules and the legal consequences of the material presented must be assessed under UAE law and in light of the particular proceedings.
The Ajman case reinforces a fundamental principle of criminal law: force must be judged in context. Legitimate self-defence may protect a person who uses appropriate force to counter an immediate threat, including when intervening to protect someone else. But the legal distinction between necessary intervention and unlawful retaliation ultimately depends on the facts, the evidence and the requirements of the law.
For enquiries or further information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.