UAE Supreme Court overturns deportation of resident convicted of drug use

Ajman: The UAE Federal Supreme Court has overturned a deportation order against a foreign national convicted of consuming controlled substances, reinstating the original Dh30,000 fine after ruling that an appellate court cannot replace a financial penalty with deportation when the defendant is the only party appealing the judgment.

The court found that the appellate court had unlawfully worsened the defendant’s position by replacing the fine with deportation. It cancelled the deportation order but upheld the conviction, rejecting the remaining grounds of appeal.

The case involved the consumption of methamphetamine and pregabalin without legal authorisation, with the defendant classified as a repeat offender for the second time. He was also convicted of consuming tropicamide, a substance capable of causing mental harm, central nervous system depression and sedation.

The defence was led by lawyer and legal adviser Abdullah Bin Hatem, who argued before the Federal Supreme Court that the appellate court had exceeded its legal authority by replacing the original fine with deportation.

In his defence, Bin Hatem maintained that the defendant was the only appellant and that the appellate court could not impose a harsher outcome when considering his appeal.

The defence also highlighted that the defendant was born in the UAE and lived in the country with his family, arguing that deportation would seriously affect the family’s stability and support arrangements.

The lawyer raised additional challenges to the forensic evidence, the medical prescription and the preliminary investigation procedures.

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

However, after the defendant appealed, the Ajman Court of Appeal replaced the fine with deportation from the UAE.

The defendant then challenged the appellate ruling before the Federal Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court rejected the challenge to the forensic laboratory report, ruling that the assessment of expert evidence falls within the trial court’s authority to evaluate the facts.

The defence had argued that the time between collecting the biological sample and delivering it for laboratory testing raised concerns about possible deterioration. The Supreme Court found that this argument sought to reopen the factual assessment of the evidence rather than establish a legal error warranting intervention.

The court also examined the claim that the consumption of psychotropic medication was supported by a valid medical prescription.

It noted that the 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 therefore rejected the prescription argument as a basis for overturning the conviction on all the charges.

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

The court ruled that the alleged omissions did not, in themselves, provide sufficient grounds to overturn the criminal judgment.

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

The Federal Supreme Court examined Article 126 of the Crimes and Penalties Law, which governs the substitution of deportation for certain custodial penalties in misdemeanour cases.

It ruled that deportation could not replace a financial fine in the circumstances of the case.

The court also stressed that the defendant was the only party to appeal the original judgment. By replacing the Dh30,000 fine with deportation, the appellate court had worsened his position and imposed a legally impermissible alternative penalty.

The Supreme Court’s intervention was therefore limited to correcting the unlawful substitution of the sentence. It did not acquit the defendant or overturn his conviction for the drug-related offences.

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 statutory exceptions. These include certain cases involving a spouse or first-degree blood relative of a UAE citizen, as well as circumstances in which deportation would cause serious harm to a family residing in the UAE, subject to the conditions prescribed by law.

The ruling, however, centred on the legality of replacing the specific financial penalty imposed in this case with deportation.

The Federal Supreme Court formally accepted the appeal, cancelled the deportation order and reinstated the Court of First Instance’s Dh30,000 fine.

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