Imprisonment and fine for driver who caused death of a person by running him over

The Dubai Traffic Court of First Instance sentenced an Asian to four months in prison, suspended his driving license for six months, fined him 10,000 dirhams, and ordered him to pay 200,000 dirhams in blood money to the family of a person whose death was caused by being run over on an internal street in a residential area.

The accused admitted during the investigations of the Public Prosecution that he was driving his car on a street consisting of two opposite lanes, and was surprised by the appearance of two children in front of him, so he tried to avoid them, which caused the vehicle to veer off its path and collide with a person who was standing off the road, which led to his injury and subsequent death.

The accused appealed the initial ruling before the Court of Appeal, which ruled to reduce the sentence to only two months in prison, while upholding the rest of the ruling.

The facts of the case, as established by the court and reported in the investigations, indicated that the accused was driving his car without taking the necessary precautions and care, or adhering to traffic instructions and laws, and appreciating road users such as pedestrians, so he ran over an Asian person who was standing outside the road, causing him serious injuries, which later resulted in his death.

The accused confessed to the charges against him during the investigations by the Public Prosecution, admitting that he was driving his car in an abnormal condition and was surprised by the appearance of two children in front of him, so he tried to use the brakes to avoid them, which led to him losing control of the steering wheel, and the car swerving outside the road and hitting the victim, admitting that he bears part of the responsibility for the accident. The accident planner from Dubai Police stated in the investigations by the Public Prosecution that he was on duty when a report was received by the operations room about a run-over accident, so he went to the site, only to discover after inspection that the accused bears full responsibility for the fault, as a result of his swerving and hitting the person who was standing outside the road, which caused the latter to sustain serious injuries, leading to his death, noting that the road where the accident occurred consists of two opposing lanes. The arrest report stated that the accused underwent an examination immediately upon arriving at the scene, and the sample he obtained from him was proven positive. He also confessed during his trial, but his lawyer argued that the Public Prosecution’s investigations were deficient, and that the accused was not at fault in causing the victim’s death by mistake, and that his confession in the evidence collection report was invalid due to the lack of assistance from a translator, demanding that he be acquitted in principle and that mercy be used against him as a precaution.

In addition, the court explained that it was proven with certainty that the accused had made a mistake, which was represented in driving the vehicle without taking into account the circumstances of the situation, or the necessary caution and care while driving, and without adhering to traffic signs and rules, and as a result of his failure to appreciate the pedestrians using the road, he ran over a person standing outside the road, and caused him, through his mistake, bodily harm that led to his death, and therefore the causal link between the accused’s mistake and the harm that occurred, which is the death of a person, is available.

Regarding the defendant’s defence that the defendant’s confession in the evidence collection report was invalid due to the lack of assistance from a translator, the court did not rely on the defendant’s confession in the evidence collection report or establish the legal effect of the confession on it, but rather relied on the evidence of proof.

The court indicated in the grounds for its ruling that the case papers were sufficient to form its belief regarding the incident, and it believed that what was stated in the defence memorandum aimed to cast doubt on the evidence of the accusation that the court was satisfied with.

She explained that it is stipulated that confession in criminal matters is one of the elements of evidence that the court of subject matter has complete freedom to assess its validity and value in proof, and it may accept the confession of the accused against himself or others at any stage of the case, if it is satisfied with its truthfulness and conformity to reality, and therefore it is satisfied with the evidence of proof, and ignores what the accused said in the investigations of the Public Prosecution that he bears part of the responsibility for the accident, and considers it a mere defense intended to escape punishment, and therefore ruled to imprison him for four months and fine him 10 thousand dirhams, and suspend his driving license for six months, in addition to blood money of 200 thousand dirhams to the family of the deceased.

In turn, the accused appealed the ruling before the Court of Appeal, which ruled to reduce the sentence to only two months in prison, while upholding the rest of the initial ruling.

• The court found that the accused drove his car without taking the necessary precautions or adhering to traffic laws and regulations.