Dubai’s discrimination acquitted a “obsessed” husband by photographing his wife

A husband of the nationality of a European country continued to litigate a lawsuit against him, and accused him of violating her privacy, by deliberately photographing her inside the house in inappropriate conditions, without her consent, describing his condition as a “kind of obsession”.

The Court of First Class in Dubai ruled to condemn the husband, and punished him with a fine of 5,000 dirhams, and referred the wife’s demand to compensate to the Civil Court, and he appealed the ruling before the Court of Appeal, but she refused to appeal it as a matter, and supported the court’s decision, so he resorted to the Court of Cassation that broke the ruling of the conviction, and ruled his innocence in one of the strange cases of its kind before the courts.

In detail, the Public Prosecution in Dubai charged a 38 -year -old European man charges assaulting his wife by taking pictures of her, and keeping her on his phone without her consent, demanding that he be punished with the misdemeanor of assault on privacy in other than the authorized conditions, according to the Act of Combating Rumors and Electronic Crime.

The facts of the lawsuit, as he settled in the certainty of the misdemeanor court and reassured her and her conscience, said that the victim informed the police that her husband was taking pictures and videos of her by his phone when she was in uncommon situations, and also when she was angry or cried.

The victim said that he was “obsessed” by registering and taking pictures of all her actions, and that she asked him for orally more than once, and through text messages, to stop filming them, but he did not pay any attention, and continued his actions, decided that this is his right as a husband.

She emphasized that the photos and videos that she filmed for her took place without her consent or consent, but rather that he continued to install surveillance cameras at home, until he watched them from a distance, and when I asked him about the reason, he told her that he published the cameras to monitor the domestic worker, but she was sure of her suspicion when she turned off the cameras while she was alone at the house, so she called her angry and asked her about the reason, and her river, and she replied that she was in the house. She realized that installing surveillance cameras is not for the sake of the domestic worker, but to monitor them, and accordingly informed the police.

By asking during the trial, the husband denied the charge against him, acknowledging that she is the one who sends her own forms, and that she is lying in her allegations about him, while he pushed his legal representative to the accusation, because of the presence of marital differences between them.

The report of the electronic evidence management in the General Administration of Criminal Evidence in Dubai Police revealed that there are special pictures of the wife in the memory of her phone, which she handed over to the police.

After looking at the case and seeing the documents, the court of first reassurance confirmed what the wife decided regarding the accused’s assault on her privacy, consistent with what was proven by electronic evidence experts.

Regarding the accusation of the existence of family differences between them, she indicated that she did not need to respond to this payment, in light of her judiciary to condemn the accused based on evidence of evidence, and ruled to convict the accused and fined him 5,000 dirhams, and referred the demand for compensation to the competent civil court to adjudicate it. For his part, the husband stabbed the preliminary ruling before the Court of Appeal and his lawyer presented a memorandum that he had erred in the application of the law, and that the photography was with the consent and knowledge of the wife, within the framework of the marital relationship, and that he did not intend to violate her privacy, but the Court of Appeal ended that the ruling of the first degree coincided with the correct law, and was based on evidence that was assured of her health, and ruled to support the ruling.

The husband continued to appeal before the Court of Cassation, which accepted his appeal, and ruled the contradiction of the contested ruling, and ended up with his innocence from violating the privacy of his wife.

mfouda@ey.ae