Supreme Court Reinstates Dh30,000 Fine, Cancels Deportation of Drug Offender

The UAE Federal Supreme Court has overturned a deportation order against a foreign national convicted of consuming controlled substances, restoring the original Dh30,000 fine imposed by a lower court.

 

The court ruled that the appellate court had acted unlawfully by replacing the financial penalty with deportation when the defendant was the only party to challenge the original judgment. Such a change had worsened his position on appeal and exceeded the court’s legal authority in the circumstances.

 

While cancelling the deportation order, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the conviction and rejected the remaining grounds of appeal.

 

The case involved the unauthorised consumption of methamphetamine and pregabalin, with the defendant classified as a repeat offender for the second time. He was also convicted of consuming tropicamide, a substance associated with potential mental harm, central nervous system depression and sedation.

 

The defence argued that the appellate court had exceeded its powers by substituting deportation for the fine. It also pointed out that the defendant was born in the UAE and lived there with his family, contending that his removal would seriously disrupt their stability and support arrangements.

 

The defence raised further objections concerning the forensic evidence, the scope of a medical prescription and alleged shortcomings in the preliminary investigation.

 

Court Rejects Most Defence Arguments

 

The Ajman Court of First Instance had convicted the defendant and imposed a Dh30,000 fine covering the offences, which it treated as legally connected.

 

However, after the defendant appealed, the Ajman Court of Appeal replaced the fine with deportation from the UAE. The defendant subsequently challenged that decision before the Federal Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court rejected the challenge to the forensic laboratory report, holding that the assessment of expert evidence and the determination of facts generally fall within the trial court’s discretion.

 

The defence had questioned the interval between the collection of the biological sample and its delivery to the laboratory, arguing that the delay raised concerns about possible deterioration. The Supreme Court found that the objection sought to reopen the factual assessment of the evidence rather than establish a legal error justifying its intervention.

 

The court also considered the argument that the consumption of psychotropic medication had been supported by a valid medical prescription.

 

It noted that forensic records confirmed that pregabalin, the active ingredient in Lyrica, had been dispensed under a valid prescription. However, the prescription did not cover methamphetamine or tropicamide. The court consequently rejected the prescription argument as grounds for overturning the convictions across all the charges.

 

The defence further alleged procedural irregularities during the preliminary investigation, claiming that neither the defendant nor the arresting officers had been properly questioned during police evidence gathering or the Public Prosecution’s investigation.

 

The court held that the alleged omissions were insufficient, in themselves, to invalidate the criminal judgment.

 

Why The Supreme Court Cancelled Deportation

 

The central issue was whether deportation could lawfully replace the financial penalty imposed by the Court of First Instance.

 

In examining Article 126 of the Crimes and Penalties Law, which regulates the substitution of deportation for certain custodial penalties in misdemeanour cases, the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the provision did not permit deportation to replace a fine in the circumstances before it.

 

The court also emphasised that the defendant alone had appealed the original judgment. By replacing the Dh30,000 fine with deportation, the appellate court had imposed a more severe outcome on the sole appellant, contrary to the applicable legal restrictions.

 

The Supreme Court’s intervention was therefore confined to correcting the unlawful change in sentence. It did not acquit the defendant or overturn his convictions for the drug-related offences.

 

Drug Law And Deportation Rules

 

The court also considered Article 75 of Federal Decree-Law No. 30 of 2021 on Combating Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, as amended.

 

The provision generally provides for the deportation of foreign nationals convicted under the legislation, subject to exceptions prescribed by law. These include certain circumstances involving a spouse or first-degree blood relative who is a UAE citizen, as well as cases in which deportation would cause serious harm to a family residing in the country, provided the statutory conditions are met.

 

However, the ruling did not amount to a general exemption from deportation for foreign nationals convicted of drug offences. Instead, the court focused on whether the appellate court had been legally entitled to replace the particular fine imposed at first instance with deportation after an appeal brought solely by the defendant.

 

The distinction is significant: the existence of deportation provisions under drug legislation does not remove the requirement for courts to apply the sentencing framework and procedural safeguards governing each case.

 

Final Verdict

 

The Federal Supreme Court formally accepted the appeal, set aside the deportation order and reinstated the Dh30,000 fine imposed by the Ajman Court of First Instance.

 

It dismissed the remaining grounds of appeal and ordered the refund of the insurance deposit.