Al Ain Court clears man of life-endangerment allegation lodged by ex-wife

Dubai: The Al Ain Court of First Instance has acquitted a 28-year-old Gulf national of reckless endangerment, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

The verdict was issued by the Third Misdemeanour Circuit at a final hearing on December 10, 2025. The court held that the charge under Article 399(1) of the UAE Crimes and Penalties Law was not proven and cited Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which requires any doubt to be resolved in favour of the accused.

Prosecutors had accused the man of deliberately intercepting a vehicle and braking suddenly after a child visitation handover, allegedly placing the complainant — his former wife — and her companion in danger. The Public Prosecution sought the maximum penalty for endangering life, arguing that the alleged manoeuvre occurred shortly after the parties left a designated visitation centre in Al Ain.

The court, however, found that the material elements of the offence had not been established with certainty.

The defendant was represented by Mohammed Al Awami, Dr Alia Al Ameri and Suad Mohammed of Al Awami Al Mansoori Law Firm and Legal Consultancy. The defence argued that the criminal complaint should be assessed within the broader context of ongoing family litigation and a contentious custody dispute.

Lawyers questioned the timing of the complaint, which was filed three days after the alleged incident via a smart application, noting that it followed adverse custody rulings. They highlighted inconsistencies in the statements of the complainant and her companion, particularly regarding the identity of the driver, the vehicle involved and whether a child was present at the time.

The defence further submitted that the accused was not driving on the day in question and had travelled in a different direction to attend work after the child handover. Evidence before the court indicated that the child had been collected by the grandfather using a different vehicle.

The lawyer argued that what she did was  a malicious lawsuit, it amounted to a false report, which carries legal consequences under the law.

According to court records, the complaint stemmed from a disputed visitation arrangement at an approved centre in Al Ain. The complainant alleged that her former husband followed her car after leaving the centre and drove in a dangerous manner, including sudden braking. She also told investigators that a verbal dispute had occurred during the handover, during which insults were allegedly exchanged.

Her companion supported parts of her account but later conceded under questioning that she was uncertain whether a child was seated in the front of the vehicle — a point relied upon by the prosecution to establish danger.

Court records showed that custody of the couple’s four children had previously been awarded to the father following judicial findings related to neglect and concerns over the children’s welfare. The mother’s contact was limited to supervised visits. On the day of the incident, only one child attended the visitation, with the others reportedly refusing to accompany her, leading to tensions and a verbal exchange at the centre.

The court noted the absence of objective or technical evidence to support the allegation. There was no traffic police report, no vehicle inspection records, no evidence of injury or damage, and no surveillance footage from the visitation centre, despite the availability of cameras at the location.

Judges also identified contradictions in witness testimony, including uncertainty over who was driving, the description of the vehicle involved and whether the defendant was present at the scene.

In its judgment, the court stressed that criminal convictions must be based on certainty rather than suspicion or probability. It reiterated that under Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Law, an accused must be acquitted if the evidence does not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Given the inconsistencies in the accounts, the lack of corroborating evidence and the charged backdrop of a custody dispute, the court ruled that the prosecution had not discharged its burden of proof.

The defendant was acquitted of all charges, bringing the criminal proceedings to a close.