RAK Court jails TikTok user over livestream death threat

Ras Al Khaimah: A Ras Al Khaimah court has sentenced a TikTok user to three months in prison and fined another Dh1,000 after a livestream dispute escalated into insults, harassment and a death threat, reinforcing that misconduct on social media platforms can carry serious criminal consequences. The verdict was issued on June 22.

The Ras Al Khaimah Court of First Instance found both men guilty of exchanging insults through an information technology platform, intentionally disturbing others via telecommunications devices and misusing communication services for unlawful purposes during a public TikTok livestream.

The case stemmed from a live broadcast on May 5, 2026, when a personal dispute between two gulf national men unfolded before a public audience and quickly deteriorated into a heated exchange of insults and threats.

According to the Public Prosecution, both defendants used the platform to direct offensive and degrading remarks at one another, transforming a private disagreement into a public confrontation. Prosecutors charged the pair with exchanging insults through electronic means, intentional disturbance through telecommunications devices, misuse of communication services and criminal threats.

The court's ruling was based largely on digital evidence, including multiple video recordings and images extracted from the livestream. The footage showed both defendants exchanging offensive comments and provocative remarks throughout the broadcast.

Judges found that one defendant used insulting phrases intended to belittle the other, while the second defendant responded with increasingly aggressive language, mockery and personal attacks.

The most serious evidence concerned a throat-slitting gesture made by the second defendant while looking directly into the camera during the livestream. The court ruled that the gesture constituted a clear death threat under established custom and law, even in the absence of spoken words.

The court emphasised that physical gestures conveying a threat to life can carry the same legal weight as verbal threats and are sufficient to establish the offence of criminal intimidation.

During the proceedings, both defendants denied the charges.

Lawyer Hanan Salem Al Shimili, representing the defendant who was ultimately fined Dh1,000, sought his full acquittal. She argued that her client had been subjected to prolonged provocation, harassment and cyberbullying before responding during the TikTok livestream.

Al Shimili told the court that her client had repeatedly attempted to avoid the dispute and lacked any criminal intent. She maintained that his comments had been taken out of context and that he became involved only after the complainant allegedly continued drawing him into TikTok live sessions.

A key part of the defence focused on the authenticity and completeness of the video evidence. Al Shimili argued that clips submitted to investigators had been selectively edited in a manner that portrayed her client as the aggressor while excluding earlier insults, threats and provocative conduct. The defence submitted full recordings, claiming they demonstrated that her client was reacting to repeated harassment rather than initiating the exchange.

She further contended that statements cited by prosecutors as threats were in fact warnings that her client intended to report the matter to authorities and file a police complaint.

According to the defence, rivalry for social media attention also played a role in the dispute. Al Shimili argued that the complainant sought to benefit from her client's larger online following and repeatedly attempted to engage him publicly to increase his own visibility.

The defence also submitted medical records showing that the defendant suffers from hearing impairment and tinnitus following major jaw surgery, arguing that these conditions may have affected his perception and understanding of events during both the livestream and the subsequent remote investigation.

The court ruling that the video evidence clearly established the offences. Judges said that while provocation could be considered during sentencing, it did not justify insults or threats made during a public broadcast.

In its judgment, the court distinguished between the conduct of the two men. It concluded that the defendant represented by Al Shimili had engaged primarily in verbal insults, while the second defendant's actions were significantly more serious because they included the simulated throat-slitting gesture and more inflammatory conduct.

As a result, the first defendant was fined Dh1,000 and ordered to pay court fees, while the second defendant received a three-month prison sentence in addition to court costs.