Abu Dhabi: The Federal Supreme Court has overturned an appeals court ruling that a criminal case could not be brought against a 16-year-old who used his father’s vehicle without permission because the father had not filed a complaint.
The court ruled that using a vehicle without the owner’s permission is an offence independent of theft and that initiating criminal proceedings does not require a complaint from the vehicle owner.
Upholding an appeal by the Public Prosecution, the Federal Supreme Court referred the case back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration after finding that the earlier ruling had erred in applying the law by treating the unauthorised use of a vehicle under provisions relating to theft.
16-year-old referred to trial
The case began when the Public Prosecution referred a 16-year-old to criminal trial on charges of driving a vehicle on a public road without a driving licence, using a vehicle without its owner’s permission or consent, and damaging and disabling two vehicles.
The prosecution sought punishment under the Juvenile Delinquents and Those at Risk of Delinquency Law, the Traffic Law and the Crimes and Penalties Law.
The Court of First Instance ruled that criminal proceedings could not be brought over the charge of using the vehicle without the owner’s permission because the vehicle belonged to the minor’s father, who had not filed a complaint against him.
However, the court sentenced the minor to one month in prison for driving without a licence and causing damage, and ordered that he be placed under electronic monitoring.
The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling.
Public Prosecution challenges ruling
The Public Prosecution appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court had erred in applying and interpreting the law.
It challenged the finding that provisions relating to theft applied to the unauthorised use of the vehicle, and therefore that the father was required to file a complaint before proceedings could be initiated against his son.
The Federal Supreme Court explained that Article 11 of the Criminal Procedures Law exclusively identifies the offences for which criminal proceedings depend on a complaint from the victim, their representative or special agent. The article also regulates the termination of such proceedings when the person entitled to file a complaint waives that right.
Separate offence from theft
The court stressed that using a vehicle without its owner’s permission is not among the offences that require a complaint before legal proceedings can begin.
It said the law contains a specific provision covering the offence and defines its elements and criminal intent independently from the offence of theft.
The court also clarified that simply placing the offence in the same chapter as other crimes against property does not mean that provisions governing theft automatically apply to it.
It found that the appealed judgment had drawn an analogy that was not supported by the wording of the law and had imposed an interpretation that was not intended by the legislator.
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the grounds on which the earlier judgment was based were contrary to the law. It therefore overturned the ruling and sent the case back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration.
Source: Emirates 24|7