Man violates privacy of woman in public place

Aya Al Deeb, Staff Reporter

The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal started the trial of an Arab man charged with violating privacy of a woman by photographing her (the plaintiff) and keeping the photos on his phone, however there was no relation between both.

When asked by the Court about the nature of his relationship with the plaintiff, the defendant explained that he works in a contracting company while she works in a decor company, and that they have signed a contract for the implementation of decorations in a gent’s salon. He confirmed that taking pictures of her was an attempt to prove her presence at the shop during a time other than the official time, and to monitor her leaving the shop.

He said: “I filmed her in a public place with the purpose of proving her illegal presence in the place, no more. And while I was calling the police to report what she was doing, she filed a complaint against me at the same time accusing me of violating her privacy.”

“The plaintiff’s case is malicious to foil the other case,’ he added.

He submitted a defence memo to the Court, which he attached to the documents confirming the working relationship between them. He called for maximum leniency and compassion of the sentence and  reduce the fine imposed by the Court of First Instance that amounted Dhs10,000.

Earlier, the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation sentenced an Asian director to 10 years in jail and obligated him to pay Dhs200,000 in blood money to be followed by deportation on charges of murdering one of his employees during a fishing trip as he previously knew the victim could not swim.

The case dated back to a dispute between the defendant and the victim after the latter had an affair with the defendant’s girlfriend. In response, the defendant gave assignments to the victim that did not fall within the scope of his work but the victim used to reject them. This caused the workers and employees to ridicule the defendant over the victim’s bid not to obey his orders. The defendant decided to get rid of the victim more than two weeks from his actual death.

The defendant invited the victim and two other employees (second and third defendants) to a fishing trip and plotted to dump him in water because he previously knew he could not swim.

Investigations revealed that the defendant had already gone to the scene of the crime and found a place where he could get rid of the victim.