Customer jailed for slapping cafe manager in Ras Al Khaimah

Ras Al Khaimah: A dispute between a 26-year-old customer and a 20-year-old cafe manager over an open window while the air conditioning was running escalated from an exchange of insults to threats and physical assault. The case came before the Misdemeanour Court in Ras Al Khaimah, which sentenced the customer to three months in prison and fined her Dh5,000. The prison term will be served under electronic monitoring. The cafe manager was fined Dh3,000 after being convicted of insult and threat. The court ordered the customer to remain at her residence for the duration of her sentence, except during her official working hours, provided she submits a letter from her employer. In sentencing the cafe manager, the court took his young age into consideration. According to the case file, the incident occurred shortly after midnight on September 4 inside a cafe. A dispute began after employees objected to the customer keeping a window open because it affected the operation of the air conditioning units. The court found that the disagreement developed into a verbal altercation in which both parties exchanged insults and abuse. The customer used words that affected the cafe manager's honour and reputation, while he responded with similar language and threatened to break her leg if she returned to the cafe. The confrontation then turned physical when the customer slapped the cafe manager in the face. Despite her sister's attempt to restrain her, she slapped him a second time. Surveillance footage reviewed by the court showed the customer leaving the cafe with her sister, followed by the manager and another employee. An argument followed, after which the customer slapped the manager. Her sister attempted to intervene, but the customer returned and slapped him a second time before leaving. Investigations showed that the cafe manager reported the incident to police through the Ministry of Interior's smart application shortly afterwards. He accused the customer of assaulting and insulting him after he asked her to close the window so the air conditioning could continue operating. Police records showed that he declined to undergo a medical examination when filing the report. The customer gave investigators a different account of how the dispute began. She said a cafe employee had asked for her phone number on behalf of another patron and that she refused. She said events then escalated into a dispute with the manager, during which he made offensive remarks and threatened her. During the investigation, the customer admitted slapping the cafe manager but said she had acted in response to verbal abuse. The manager denied the allegations against him and maintained that the dispute arose because she refused to close the window. The Public Prosecution referred both parties to trial. The customer was charged with two counts relating to assaulting and publicly insulting the cafe manager, while the manager faced two counts relating to verbally insulting and threatening the customer. During the trial, the cafe manager's lawyer argued that the elements of the offences of insult and threat had not been established. The defence said the manager had been carrying out his duties and was concerned about the cafe's safety, and that he intervened only after the customer refused to close the window. The defence also challenged the customer's account, noting that she had not immediately filed a complaint, while the manager had promptly reported the incident to police. Her statements, the defence argued, were made only after the authorities contacted her. The lawyer also disputed the customer's account of the request for her phone number and challenged her sister's testimony, arguing that the surveillance footage did not establish that the manager had made the alleged insults and threats. The defence sought the manager's acquittal, relying on his denial of the charges and the absence of audio from the surveillance recordings. The court rejected those arguments, finding that a denial was a matter of defence for the court to assess. It also held that the customer's delay in filing a complaint was not, on its own, sufficient to cast doubt on the incident or establish that the accusation was malicious. The court said the key consideration was the credibility of the evidence and whether it corresponded with what had occurred. It further found that the lack of audio in the surveillance footage did not rule out the verbal altercation or the exchange of insults and threats because it was satisfied with the verbal evidence establishing what had been said. The court also rejected the challenge to the testimony of the customer's sister based solely on their relationship. It held that kinship did not prevent a person from giving evidence or automatically diminish the value of that testimony. What mattered was whether the court considered the witness's statements credible and consistent with the other evidence. The convictions were based on the parties' sta