Life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 dirhams for “drug delivery”

An Asian person played the role of a “delivery agent” between drug dealers residing outside the country and users inside the country through the promotion method known by the control agencies as “anonymous messages.” He hid the drugs agreed upon by both parties in certain places and sent their coordinates via the mapping service. To the unknown merchant and from there to the buyer, who goes to receive it without the two parties meeting.

The Dubai Police General Department of Narcotics Control seized the accused in possession of more than 100 grams of hashish, and he was referred to the Public Prosecution and then to the Penal Court, which punished him with life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 dirhams.

In detail, the facts of the case stated, according to what was established in the court’s confidence and which its conscience was satisfied with, that information was received by the General Administration for Narcotics Control about the criminal activity of the accused and his possession of a quantity of drugs, so a permit was obtained from the Public Prosecution and it was seized near his residence.

When he was searched, 10 rolls of a dark substance with the distinctive appearance of hashish were found in his possession. He was also found with a mezzanine and an adhesive tape used in promotional operations. He was arrested and referred to the Public Prosecution.

During the Public Prosecution’s investigations, he admitted to possessing the seized items, admitting that he received instructions from an Asian person residing outside the country to divide the drugs, hide them in specific areas, and send their geographical locations via a mapping service, in exchange for a sum of money.

During the hearing of the case, the accused appeared via remote video communication technology, admitted his possession of the seized items, and his lawyer submitted a memorandum in which he explained the circumstances of the case and argued that the physical element of the crime of trafficking was absent, according to the Public Prosecution’s adaptation of the incident.

He also pleaded the absence of criminal intent, the invalidation of the Public Prosecution’s permission based on non-serious investigations, and the absence of any connection between the accused and the seized items.

In the merits of its ruling, the court explained that the claim to invalidate the Public Prosecution’s permission on the basis of non-serious investigations is invalid, and it is rejected by the fact that the decision was made that assessing the seriousness of the investigations and their adequacy to issue a search warrant is one of the objective issues in which the matter is entrusted to the investigating authority under the supervision of the trial court, and that the court was convinced of the seriousness of the investigations and their adequacy to issue a search warrant. Investigations, and the sufficiency of the reasons on which the permission was based, given that they resulted in the arrest of the accused red-handed in possession of drugs.

Regarding the claim that he was not connected to the seized items, the court believes that it is established that the accused was arrested after the raid and in possession of the seized items, and that he also directed the police officers to the geographical locations in which he hid the narcotic substances.

A search of his residence found a quantity of them and two electronic scales, which reassured the court about his connection to the seized items.

The court continued that since it was legally stipulated that it does not abide by the legal description given by the Public Prosecution to the act attributed to the accused, it does not prevent it from amending it whenever it deems it appropriate to return the incident to the correct description, and to apply the provisions of the law to it as long as it does not exceed its conduct.

It stated that it does not agree with the Public Prosecution in considering the accused to have possessed drugs for the purpose of trafficking, because what is confirmed from his confession, which it is reassured by, is that he receives the seized items based on instructions from the unknown person, and delivers them and places them in geographical locations based on his instructions, and therefore the court believes that his role is limited to that, And his possession of it is devoid of other purposes.

She pointed out that the case papers were devoid of any certain evidence that could reassure the court of the existence of the intention of trafficking or promotion, as they were devoid of anything indicating that he had encouraged dealers to engage in dealing. Rather, his role was limited to burying them based on the coordinates that the unknown merchant informed him of.

mfouda@ey.ae