The pith of criminal law depends on two elements Actus Reus and Mens Rea derived from the legal maxim "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" which means no act is punishable without a guilty mind. 

The

examination of a mental component essential for wrongdoing will be

limited with reference to the utilization of this term itself, in so far

as it connotes the mental component important to convict for any

wrongdoing, and just in regards to violations not based on negligent

behaviour.

A bare review of the laws manifests that it is easy to determine the

criminal intent of a person as he is always aware of acts and the

consequences attached to it, yet it is one of the difficult tasks before

the criminal court, depending upon varying circumstances of the case.

The major difference between criminal intent and negligence, as

understood by best Criminal Lawyers in Dubai, remains in the fact that

whether or not the accused was in his state of mind to understand the

consequences of the act he is committing.

The intention of the Law

The Federal Law Number 3 of 1987 concerned the UAE Penal Code (the

Code) provides for the basis of criminal intention. According to the

Code under Article 38 the essence of a criminal act lies in the intent

or mistake. Accordingly, the intent is based on three further elements

which are knowledge, foresight and desire. Wherein, the knowledge in

such circumstances known as actus reus or the act itself, foresight

means the awareness of the consequences of such act under the law and

desire leads to the outcome of such act.

Whereas, any act will be considered as a mistake if it was committed

with sheer recklessness, negligence, non-observance of law, and

carelessness. The Code has vested discretionary powers in criminal

judges and prosecutors to determine the criminal intent by conducting

comprehensive and intense interrogations from which they may conclude

the guilt of the accused. On the contrary to the foregoing, a criminal

judge is not bound by the evidence produced by the public prosecutor, he

may take an altogether different path and dismiss the case.

Criminal Intent and Judicial Interpretation of UAE courts

Criminal judges, contingent on the courts, hold wide discretionary

powers while passing a decision on a particular criminal case.

Fundamentally, they frame their own beliefs while determine the element

of criminal intent and asses the evidence presented by the public

prosecutor and the defence submitted by the accused. Court's utmost

focus is to achieve an obvious result on the basis of the evidence

presented to either convict the accused of the criminal act or acquit

him due to insufficient evidence to prove his guilt.

In this article, we will exhibit how the courts in the UAE at the

diverse dimensions have approached and investigated the moral component

of intent through various decisions of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has through Cassation Court Case Number 478 of 2016

provided factors to establish or set aside the criminal intent which

includes merits of the case, evidence produced before the court,

circumstances and the precedents. The foregoing case determined the

criminal intent while escaping the police custody. Supreme Court further

held that in crime for desertion, the accused fulfils the moral element

of criminal intent when he tried to escape from police custody. The

happening of an event or the distance he travelled is irrelevant as long

as the intention to do a crime is established.

The knowledge of possessing narcotics drugs establishes the very criminal intent which was deduced from Court of Cassation Case Number 274 of 2016,

wherein the court held that the criminal intent would exist if the

accused was aware of the substances in possession. It is the right of

the court to draw a nexus between the occurrence of an act along with

the criminal intent on the basis of evidence and investigation by the

prosecutor.

Another landmark judgement assisting us to understand the factors

affecting criminal intent and varied opinion of criminal court judges is

Cassation Court Case Number 730 of 2005. In the said case, the

crime for misappropriation of funds or fraud by a public servant most

definitely involves a criminal intent along with an intention to

squandering funds of the government as claimed by the public prosecutor.

However, the defendant pleaded not guilty and argued on the basis of

lack of moral intent, and no damage was caused to the funds. The Court

of First Instance opined that the combined acts of all the defendants

portray a moral unity which brought them together to commit such act.

Along with moral unity, both the accused were informed about the

consequences and the outcome of the criminal act. The court of Appeal

supported the same opinion. However, the Supreme Court set aside the

order passed by First Instance and the appeal and ordered for a re-trial

before a different bench of the Appeal court. The Court of Appeal had a

disparate opinion and held that accused were not guilty of the offence

as the elements of criminal intent were not satisfied. The matter again

referred to the Supreme Court where they confirmed the criminal intent

of the accused. The court held that implementation of specific contracts

to avoid the lawful procedure built the very basis of criminal intent.

It Concludes that

The aforementioned precedents simplified by Criminal Lawyers in Dubai

assisted the courts and the public prosecutor in analyzing the merits,

evidence and the circumstances of the case in such a manner which

highlights the mens rea along with actus reus. However, the evaluation

or analysis may still vary depending upon the discretion and

understanding of the criminal court in such circumstances.