Ajman court upholds son's acquittal in assault case against father

Ajman: The Federal Court of Appeal in Ajman has upheld the acquittal of a 22-year-old man accused of assaulting his father, ruling that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond doubt.

The case began when the son filed a complaint against his 67-year-old father, alleging that he had been assaulted inside the family home after refusing to withdraw a case previously filed against one of his half-brothers.

According to court documents, an argument erupted after the father asked his son to drop the case. The son claimed his father struck him with a bamboo stick in the presence of family members, including his mother, sister and cousin, before he reported the incident to police.

The son's mother supported his account during the investigation, stating that her husband had assaulted their son with a stick after he refused to withdraw the case.

The father, however, alleged that his son assaulted him during the confrontation. A medical report recorded scratches, a wound to the father's left hand and bruises to his head and chest, with a treatment period of three days. The Public Prosecution subsequently charged both men with assault and referred the case to court.

A key piece of evidence was surveillance camera footage from inside the home. According to the court's review of the recording, the father was seen entering the room carrying a wooden stick and striking his son several times. The footage then showed the son taking the stick from his father and breaking it.

The Court of First Instance acquitted the son, finding insufficient evidence that he had assaulted his father, while convicting the father and sentencing him to six months in prison and a fine of AED10,000.

The Public Prosecution appealed the son's acquittal, and an earlier Court of Appeal panel overturned the ruling, sentencing him to one month in prison and imposing a fine of AED5,000.

The son then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, which overturned the conviction because the judgment lacked a sufficient explanation of the facts and evidence supporting the finding of guilt. The case was referred back to the Court of Appeal to be heard by a different panel.

Before the new panel, the son maintained that he had not assaulted his father and argued that he had merely taken the stick away to stop the attack.

After reviewing the evidence, the court found that the surveillance footage supported the son's version of events. It concluded that taking the stick from his father appeared to be an attempt to stop the assault rather than an act of aggression.

The court further ruled that the father's injuries did not, on their own, prove that the son had intended to assault him. Judges noted that the injuries could have occurred during the struggle over the stick as the son attempted to disarm his father.

As a result, the court found that reasonable doubt remained regarding the son's criminal liability and stressed that criminal convictions must be based on certainty, with any doubt interpreted in favour of the accused.

The court therefore accepted the Public Prosecution's appeal procedurally but rejected it on the merits, confirming the son's acquittal.