Tree-cutting case in UAE: Dubai court dismisses charges against police officer

Dubai: A Dubai misdemeanour court has acquitted a police officer accused of damaging a farm fence and unlawfully cutting trees, ruling that prosecutors failed to present sufficient evidence to prove he misused his authority or instructed municipal workers to carry out the trimming.

Court verdict

In its recent verdict, the court cleared the defendant of all charges related to damaging private property and cutting trees without permission. The judge noted that the case file did not meet the standard of certainty required for a criminal conviction, adding that obtaining permissions and verifying land boundaries is the responsibility of the competent municipality—not the officer.

The defendant was represented by lawyer Mohammed Abdullah Al Redha, who highlighted contradictions in witness statements and gaps in the evidence.

Tree-trimming dispute

The case originated after a complaint alleging that tree-cutting near a private farm in Wadi Al Amardi had caused damage to a section of an aluminium fence. Municipal teams had earlier visited the area following reports that overhanging branches were obstructing a nearby road.

Court documents show the matter was initially reported on October 26 of last year around 4:30 pm. The operations room received a complaint concerning alleged property damage in the area. A patrol dispatched to the site met the complainant, who claimed that municipal crews were cutting trees either inside or along the property boundary, allegedly damaging part of the fence. The patrol documented the scene and registered the report.

Investigation documents revealed that the officer’s involvement stemmed from a neighbour’s request. He said he only shared the location of obstructing branches with municipal staff and later met an inspector on-site to point out the area affecting traffic flow.

Conflicting accounts

During questioning, a municipality supervisor claimed he proceeded with trimming the branches because the officer—who was in uniform—indicated that approval from the farm’s management had already been secured. The supervisor said he relied on this understanding when the work began.

The defendant denied the claim, insisting he never issued instructions, never claimed permission had been granted, and had no role in authorising the cutting. He said he only indicated the location of branches extending into the street and informed a farm worker that municipal teams might return to prune them. He added that he was not present during the trimming and was unaware of who carried out the work.

Defendant’s statement

The officer stated he became involved solely because a neighbour asked him to relay the location of obstructing branches to municipal staff. He assumed municipal teams would follow their internal procedures, including verifying ownership and obtaining proper consent before performing any work on private land.

He rejected allegations that he used his uniform to influence municipal staff, stressing he neither ordered nor supervised the cutting and was unaware of any fence damage until after the complaint emerged.

Defence arguments

Lawyer Mohammed Abdullah Al Redha emphasised key inconsistencies in the case, highlighting contradictions between the supervisor’s account and other testimonies. The defence noted that no independent evidence proved the defendant instructed anyone to carry out the work, and that verifying permits is the municipality’s responsibility.

Redha argued that the case relied solely on an uncorroborated claim and that routine municipal procedures were not followed.

Why the court dismissed the charges

The court concluded that the evidence failed to establish criminal intent, a required element in charges related to damaging property or cutting trees. Any doubt regarding these elements must be interpreted in favour of the accused.

The ruling highlighted that the officer’s role was limited to guiding a municipal employee to the site of obstructing branches and coordinating with the farm manager. The court confirmed he did not order the trimming of trees, nor did he misuse his position to direct municipal staff. Instructions for the pruning came from the relevant department within the municipality, not the defendant.

The court added that the officer’s intention was to address a public obstruction rather than commit an offence. Since the legal requirements for conviction under the Crimes and Penalties Law were not met, the court acquitted the defendant and dismissed the case in line with Article 212 of the Criminal Procedures Law.