Ajman: The Federal Supreme Court partially overturned an Appeals Court ruling that had ordered the deportation of a resident convicted of using psychotropic substances and harmful materials. 

The Court instructed the deportation order to be revoked and upheld the lower court's ruling, imposing a fine of Dh30,000. The Supreme Court affirmed that the law does not permit substituting a fine for deportation, and that the court's authority in this matter, according to legal regulations, is limited to custodial sentences for misdemeanours and does not extend to financial penalties. 

The ruling came after the defendant appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, maintaining that he was born and raised in the UAE with his family, and that deportation would cause him and his family significant harm, especially since he was the sole appellant against the initial ruling that fined him, before the Appeals Court decided to replace the fine with deportation.

In detail, the Public Prosecution in Ajman charged the defendant with two counts of using psychoactive substances, namely methamphetamine and pregabalin, for the second time, in circumstances not permitted by law, in addition to using the substance tropicamide, which would harm the mind and the central nervous system and cause anesthaesia, according to the forensic laboratory report.

The prosecution referred the accused to trial, demanding that he be punished in accordance with the provisions of Federal Decree-Law No. 30 of 2021, concerning combating narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and its amendments.

The Ajman Federal Misdemeanour Court of First Instance ruled, in the presence of the defendant, a fine of Dh30,000 for the charges brought against him due to their connection, but he appealed the ruling, demanding its cancellation.

The Ajman Federal Court of Appeal accepted the appeal in form and ruled on the merits to replace the fine with deportation from the country, which prompted the defendant to appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, objecting to the deportation measure.

He explained that the appeal ruling caused him serious harm, as he was born in the country and resides there with his family, noting that he filed the appeal alone, without the Public Prosecution appealing the initial ruling, yet the Court of Appeal ended up replacing the fine with deportation.

He also argued that the technical report on which the court based its conviction was invalid, due to the time difference between taking the sample and sending it for examination, considering that this may affect its safety and suitability for analysis.

He maintained that his use of a psychoactive substance was under an approved medical prescription, which the judge did not take into account, in addition to not questioning him or the arresting officers during the evidence-gathering and public prosecution investigation phases.

The Federal Supreme Court rejected his arguments regarding the establishment of the crime, stressing that the ruling was based on valid evidence sufficient to prove the charges, and that the assessment of expert reports and technical evidence falls within the authority of the trial court, and its evidentiary strength cannot be re-examined before the Court of Cassation as long as the court’s conclusion is valid.

Regarding the prescription, the court clarified that the forensic report confirmed the dispensing of pregabalin, the active ingredient in Lyrica, to the defendant with a current prescription. However, the report did not confirm the dispensing of the other two substances, methamphetamine and tropicamide, with a prescription, which does not negate his responsibility for the crimes attributed to him. The court emphasised that the defendant's claim of not being questioned during the preliminary investigation and interrogation phases pertains to pre-trial procedures and is not, in itself, a valid ground for appeal.

In contrast, the Federal Supreme Court saw that the appeal ruling erred in applying the law by replacing the fine with deportation, explaining that Article 126 of the Crimes and Penalties Law allows the court, in specific cases, to deport the foreigner instead of the penalty restricting freedom in misdemeanours, which is imprisonment, and this does not extend to the penalty of a fine.

It explained that the fine is a primary penalty, while deportation is a legal measure, and that the appeal ruling did not take this distinction into account when it canceled the financial penalty and replaced it with the deportation of the accused.

The court reviewed the provisions of Article 75 of the Law on Combating Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, as amended by Federal Decree-Law No. 14 of 2025, which stipulates the deportation of a foreigner convicted of the crimes stipulated in the law, while specifying cases that are exempt from the deportation measure.

Exceptions include when the convicted person, at the time of committing the crime, is the spouse or first-degree relative of a citizen, or a member of a family residing in the country, and the court believes that his deportation would cause serious harm to its stability, or deprive one of its members of the necessary care or support, in accordance with legal regulations.

The court confirmed that the error in the appeal ruling was in replacing the fine with deportation, even though the court of first instance ruled on the fine only, and did not order the deportation of the accused, in addition to him being the only appellant of the ruling without the Public Prosecution.

The Federal Supreme Court concluded by accepting the appeal in form, partially overturning the ruling, and correcting it by canceling what it had decided regarding replacing the fine with the deportation of the accused from the country, and upholding the initial ruling to fine him 30,000 dirhams, and rejecting the appeal in all other respects, with the return of the insurance amount.