Tweet
PRISON ASSAULT CASE VERDICT ON JUNE 29
By Mary Nammour
Khaleej Times
June 16 2008
United Arab Emirates
DUBAI -- The hearing in the Central Prison assault case concluded
yesterday with several defence counsel making their points in support
of their respective clients. The Dubai Criminal Court of First Instance
is expected to give its verdict on June 29.
However, the court could not view the second video recording of the
incident of August 1, 2007 because the tape was not available.
Twenty-five prison officers, including the former director of the
Men's Prison, Lt-Col. T.Q. and three other high-ranking officers,
have been charged with assault and abuse of power.
In the assault by the jail wardens, an Armenian inmate, S.K., had
reportedly suffered 10 per cent permanent disability as a result of
a spinal injury. He was, however, deported from the UAE recently.
Khalifa Salman, the defence counsel of Lt-Col. T.Q., said his client
gave instructions to the jail wardens to search the cells for possible
presence of drugs apparently smuggled into the prison.
"He did not tell them to use force or violence when ordering the
inmates out of the cells. If the jailers pushed the prisoners around in
a hurry, that does not amount to assault," the defence argued. Another
defence counsel, Ali Mousabeh, pointed out the contradictions in the
statements of S.K.'s friend. On one occasion the witness claimed that
S.K. was kicked and at other times he said that S.K. fell down the
stairs after being pushed by the policemen. At the same time, he also
said that there were no jail wardens on the stairs, the lawyer argued.
Mousabeh stressed that the incitement by the inmates to give false
testimonies in order to incriminate the jail wardens ought to be
taken into consideration.
Defence lawyer Kawthar Ibrahim said the medical report of S.K. showed
that he suffered permanent disability in the spinal column. "If the
allegation that he was beaten by 15 policemen and anti-riot officers
was true, he would have suffered bruises and injuries in various
parts of his body, not just one."
"That proves that S.K. was a victim of an accident, not physical
assault. The medical report supports that argument," he pointed out.
Defence lawyer Samir Jaafar stressed that the evidence available in
support of the 25 defendants indicates that they did nothing wrong
on August 1.
"When the inmates carried the injured S.K. to the Central Prison clinic
the first thing they told the physician was that he had fallen from
the stairs, and that is the truth," Jaafar pointed out, adding that
the officers only acted sternly in order to scare the inmates into
obeying the instructions.
Defence lawyer Abdel Karim Maky said the accusation of the Iraqi
prisoner on which the case rests, was false and unreliable.
"That inmate is one of the most dangerous prisoners in the Central
Prison and he had a major involvement in the incitement. He held some
grudge against the prison officers," he alleged.
Defence lawyer Nabih Badr said that some of the police officers on
trial have been in service for more than 20 years. "The anti-riot
police officers are well trained and know how to quell violence
without causing any injury," he maintained.
The defence lawyers also noted that the Iraqi prisoner, who alleged
manhandling by the jailers, had resisted the wardens, insulted them
and the system and tried to escape. "That is why he was overpowered
and handcuffed," they said.
The lawyers also argued that whatever the jail officers did was part
of their duties, otherwise they would have been held responsible for
dereliction of duty.
By Mary Nammour
Khaleej Times
June 16 2008
United Arab Emirates
DUBAI -- The hearing in the Central Prison assault case concluded
yesterday with several defence counsel making their points in support
of their respective clients. The Dubai Criminal Court of First Instance
is expected to give its verdict on June 29.
However, the court could not view the second video recording of the
incident of August 1, 2007 because the tape was not available.
Twenty-five prison officers, including the former director of the
Men's Prison, Lt-Col. T.Q. and three other high-ranking officers,
have been charged with assault and abuse of power.
In the assault by the jail wardens, an Armenian inmate, S.K., had
reportedly suffered 10 per cent permanent disability as a result of
a spinal injury. He was, however, deported from the UAE recently.
Khalifa Salman, the defence counsel of Lt-Col. T.Q., said his client
gave instructions to the jail wardens to search the cells for possible
presence of drugs apparently smuggled into the prison.
"He did not tell them to use force or violence when ordering the
inmates out of the cells. If the jailers pushed the prisoners around in
a hurry, that does not amount to assault," the defence argued. Another
defence counsel, Ali Mousabeh, pointed out the contradictions in the
statements of S.K.'s friend. On one occasion the witness claimed that
S.K. was kicked and at other times he said that S.K. fell down the
stairs after being pushed by the policemen. At the same time, he also
said that there were no jail wardens on the stairs, the lawyer argued.
Mousabeh stressed that the incitement by the inmates to give false
testimonies in order to incriminate the jail wardens ought to be
taken into consideration.
Defence lawyer Kawthar Ibrahim said the medical report of S.K. showed
that he suffered permanent disability in the spinal column. "If the
allegation that he was beaten by 15 policemen and anti-riot officers
was true, he would have suffered bruises and injuries in various
parts of his body, not just one."
"That proves that S.K. was a victim of an accident, not physical
assault. The medical report supports that argument," he pointed out.
Defence lawyer Samir Jaafar stressed that the evidence available in
support of the 25 defendants indicates that they did nothing wrong
on August 1.
"When the inmates carried the injured S.K. to the Central Prison clinic
the first thing they told the physician was that he had fallen from
the stairs, and that is the truth," Jaafar pointed out, adding that
the officers only acted sternly in order to scare the inmates into
obeying the instructions.
Defence lawyer Abdel Karim Maky said the accusation of the Iraqi
prisoner on which the case rests, was false and unreliable.
"That inmate is one of the most dangerous prisoners in the Central
Prison and he had a major involvement in the incitement. He held some
grudge against the prison officers," he alleged.
Defence lawyer Nabih Badr said that some of the police officers on
trial have been in service for more than 20 years. "The anti-riot
police officers are well trained and know how to quell violence
without causing any injury," he maintained.
The defence lawyers also noted that the Iraqi prisoner, who alleged
manhandling by the jailers, had resisted the wardens, insulted them
and the system and tried to escape. "That is why he was overpowered
and handcuffed," they said.
The lawyers also argued that whatever the jail officers did was part
of their duties, otherwise they would have been held responsible for
dereliction of duty.