Man to Be Deported from UAE Over Crime Scene Tampering in Murder Case.
A man who entered an apartment sealed by prosecutors and removed items from the property while it was part of a murder investigation has lost his final appeal against deportation.
The UAE’s Federal Supreme Court upheld the man’s conviction, finding that he had knowingly interfered with a secured crime scene and attempted to obstruct investigators.
According to court records, the defendant had shared the apartment with another man who was implicated in a murder case. Authorities ordered the property to be sealed and placed under judicial control to preserve any potential evidence linked to the investigation.
Despite the order, the defendant broke the lock, entered the apartment and removed furniture and other belongings. By doing so, he altered the condition of the property after authorities had secured it.
Prosecutors subsequently charged him with tampering with a crime scene and removing potential evidence with the intention of obstructing the investigation.
Deportation order upheld
A lower court found the man guilty and ordered his deportation instead of imposing a one-year prison sentence. An appellate court later upheld the decision, leading the defendant to take his case to the Federal Supreme Court.
In his appeal, the man argued that he had legally occupied the apartment under a tenancy agreement. He maintained that he entered the property only to retrieve his personal belongings after the lease had expired and after receiving clearance from the landlord.
The defendant also denied knowing that authorities had officially prohibited anyone from entering the apartment. His lawyer argued that prosecutors had failed to prove the criminal intent necessary to support the conviction.
However, the Federal Supreme Court rejected the defence arguments, relying on witness testimony, surveillance footage and statements the defendant had made during the investigation.
Evidence presented in the case showed that the man had previously contacted prosecutors to ask why the apartment had been sealed. The court said this indicated that he was aware the property was linked to a murder investigation and that access to it had been restricted.
The judges also found that the lower courts had properly considered the available evidence and provided adequate grounds for their decisions. They noted that trial courts are entitled to evaluate witness testimony and other evidence as long as their conclusions are reasonable and supported by the case records.
The court concluded that the defendant’s awareness of the ongoing investigation, followed by his decision to break into the apartment and remove its contents, was sufficient to establish the elements of the offence.
His final appeal was dismissed, leaving both the conviction and deportation order in place.
