“Dubai Misdemeanors” ends the “judicial test” for a teenager after his behavior is correct

The Dubai Misdemeanor Court granted a 16-year-old Gulf teenager a second chance, after he was involved in a nighttime robbery, in cooperation with another person, and ruled to convict him, but decided to put him under judicial probation.

The case dates back to last May, when the Public Prosecution charged a 16-year-old juvenile with stealing a sum of money amounting to 1,800 dirhams, in conjunction with another fugitive, in the jurisdiction of the Al Qusais Police Station. The incident occurred at night, and the victim had filed a report, in which he stated that he had been robbed as proven in the papers.

The Public Prosecution referred the accused to trial, demanding that the articles of the Crimes and Penal Code be applied, in addition to the provisions of the Juvenile Offenders and Those At Risk of Delinquency Law, as it is the legal framework that governs this type of case.

After examining the case, the court issued its ruling to punish the juvenile by placing him under judicial probation, a clear indication that the goal was not punishment as much as it was reform and correction, in line with the legislator’s philosophy in dealing with juveniles.

Since the ruling was issued, the juvenile has undergone a psychological and social follow-up program, under the supervision of specialists, aimed at correcting delinquent behaviors, enhancing legal awareness, and reintegrating him into his family and social environment.

During the follow-up period extending from June to August 2025, the main psychologist submitted periodic reports to the court, which concluded with results that the court described as positive and decisive.

It was reported that the juvenile’s behavior and personality had stabilized, and that he had become aware of the importance of adhering to the law and staying away from deviance, and that the case itself played a significant role in his life, as he became closer to his family, and more receptive to advice and guidance, and the recommendations clearly ended with a request to end the judicial probation measure, considering that its purpose had been achieved.

During the last trial session, the juvenile appeared in person before the court, in the presence of a social worker from the Public Prosecution, and confessed to what was attributed to him, in a scene that bore an indication of his bearing responsibility, and not just procedural compliance.

In light of the defendant’s young age, the stability of his behavior, and the absence of any indication that he might return to committing the crime, the court considered that maintaining the measure was no longer justified, and might even lead to adverse consequences for his future. It based its ruling on the text of Article 30 of the Juvenile Offenders and those at Risk of Delinquency, which gives it the authority to amend, stop, or terminate the measures, whenever it deems the reports and behavior to justify it, without its ruling being subject to appeal.

• The psychologist’s reports indicated that the juvenile’s behavior and personality stabilized, that he became aware of the importance of staying away from deviance, and that the case played a significant role in his life.