An Asian man was obligated to pay 250,000 dirhams as blood money for causing the death of a cyclist

The Dubai Traffic Court ruled to oblige an Asian driver to pay 250,000 dirhams in blood money, in addition to a 10,000 dirham fine, for causing the death of a motorcyclist of the same nationality, as a result of his negligence in driving and not leaving enough distance between his vehicle and the bike.

The Public Prosecution charged the accused with: driving a vehicle without taking into account the circumstances of the situation, taking the necessary care and caution, negligence and inattention, and not leaving a sufficient distance, which led to hitting a motorcycle that was traveling in its correct lane, and inflicting severe bodily harm on its driver that led to his death, and destroying money. The bike is owned by someone else. The accused denied causing the accident, noting that the bike driver suddenly swerved in front of his car.

The facts of the case – as established by the court and its conscience – stated that the accused was driving his car on a road within the jurisdiction of the Jebel Ali Police Station, but he did not adhere to the traffic rules by not leaving enough distance between the vehicles, and he collided with the victim’s bike, which was traveling in its correct lane. Which caused his death, and damaged the car he was driving and the deceased’s bike.

A Dubai Police witness who went to the accident site stated that he conducted an inspection at the scene and confirmed that the accused did not adhere to the necessary distance between the vehicles in front of him, and that he was the one who caused the accident.

When the accused was questioned during the Public Prosecution’s investigations, he denied the accusation against him, stating that he was driving a vehicle returning to the company where he works on Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Road towards Sharjah, and he was surprised when the bike driver swerved in front of his car and collided with him, indicating that he was driving his car normally. on its specified path.

The accused did not appear before the court despite being notified of the lawsuit, and it was then reserved for judgment.

The court prefaced its ruling on the matter by stating that “the point in proving criminal matters is the judge’s conviction and confidence in the evidence presented as long as it has its correct source in the papers.”

She explained that “after she had fully understood the facts of the case with insight and insight, she was reassured by the above-mentioned evidence of proof, due to its integrity and lack of any doubt.”

It confirmed the validity of the accusation against the car driver, “derived from the testimony of an accident expert, who proved that the collision occurred from behind as a result of the vehicle driver’s failure to maintain the necessary distance between his car and the vehicles in front, and therefore he was the one who caused the accident.”

She pointed out that she “resisted from denying the accused in the Public Prosecution’s investigations, in light of her reassurance that he committed the crime with its physical and moral components, and his defense before the court did not find anything that would shake its belief in what it concluded, especially since the defense focused on arguing about the court’s assessment of the evidence of the case, and casting doubt on it.” It is a matter in which it is independent, and it is not permissible to enter within the scope of its authority in evaluating the evidence, and thus circumvent what was stated in the defense memorandum.” The court concluded by convicting the accused of the two charges assigned to him by the Public Prosecution, and considers that they were inseparably linked to a single criminal act. It therefore considers them to be a single crime and imposes the most severe punishment, which is a fine of 10,000 dirhams, in addition to obligating him to pay 250,000 dirhams as blood money to the family of the deceased.

The accused did not accept the ruling in absentia that was issued against him, so he appealed it by way of opposition. The court accepted the appeal, but he did not attend the session. The court considered the opposition as non-existent and upheld the ruling.