CCTV footage shows son disarming father and breaking wooden stick.
Ajman: An appeals court in Ajman has upheld the acquittal of a 22-year-old Arab man who had been accused of assaulting his 67-year-old father, after surveillance footage indicated that his actions were intended to stop an ongoing attack rather than commit an offence.
The Ajman Federal Court of Appeal rejected an appeal filed by the Public Prosecution and upheld the earlier ruling clearing the son of the charge.
According to the court’s findings, the son intervened during a violent family altercation to take a wooden stick away from his father. The evidence was found insufficient to establish the legal elements necessary for a criminal conviction.
The court also determined that the father’s injuries occurred during the struggle as the son attempted to remove the wooden stick, rather than as a result of a deliberate assault by the son.
The case involved allegations of mutual assault resulting in injuries that prevented the individuals involved from carrying out their normal activities for fewer than 20 days, an offence covered under the UAE Crimes and Penalties Law.
Court documents showed that the confrontation occurred at the family’s home in Ajman in August 2025. The dispute began after one of the children asked the father to withdraw a criminal complaint he had previously filed against the son.
After the father refused the request, the disagreement intensified and eventually developed into a physical altercation.
Family members who witnessed the incident testified that the father had picked up a wooden stick and started striking his children. Although the father alleged that his son had verbally abused and physically attacked him, several witnesses provided a different account of what happened.
Their testimony indicated that the father had initiated the physical confrontation, supporting the son’s claim that he intervened in an attempt to stop the attack.
A key development in the case came when investigators examined surveillance footage recorded inside the family residence. Police analysis showed the father entering a room with a wooden stick and striking his son several times on the hand and arm.
The footage subsequently showed the son moving towards his father, taking the stick away from him and breaking it into two pieces. According to the court’s assessment, the recording did not show the son initiating a physical attack against his father.
The father later presented a medical report detailing scratches, bruises, an injury to his hand and other minor wounds that required three days of treatment. However, the court determined that the injuries were likely sustained during the confrontation as the son attempted to disarm his father and bring the incident to an end.
The defence, headed by lawyer and legal adviser Abdullah Bin Hatem, maintained that the son had not deliberately attacked his father and lacked any criminal intent. It argued that his actions were aimed at protecting other family members and preventing further violence.
To support its case, the defence relied on statements from the son’s mother, brother, sister and aunt, as well as one minute and 26 seconds of CCTV footage. The surveillance recording ultimately played a significant role in the court’s assessment of the incident.
The case went through several stages before reaching its final outcome. The court of first instance initially cleared the son of the charge, while convicting the father in absentia and sentencing him to six months in prison and a Dh10,000 fine.
Prosecutors subsequently appealed the son’s acquittal. A higher court reversed the earlier decision and sentenced him to one month in prison along with a Dh5,000 fine.
The son challenged that judgment before the Federal Supreme Court, which overturned the appellate ruling after identifying shortcomings in the assessment of the facts, evidence and legal elements of the alleged offence. The case was then returned to a newly formed appellate panel for fresh consideration.
Following a new examination of the evidence, particularly the CCTV recording, the appellate panel concluded that the son’s actions were intended to prevent an ongoing threat rather than carry out an assault.
The court emphasised that a criminal conviction must be supported by certainty and that unresolved doubt should be interpreted in favour of the accused. It found that the alleged criminal conduct had either not been sufficiently established or did not meet the requirements of a punishable offence.
The Public Prosecution’s appeal was therefore dismissed, and the son’s acquittal was upheld.
