A Dubai misdemeanour court has cleared a police officer of charges accusing him of damaging a farm fence and unlawfully cutting trees, ruling that prosecutors failed to provide sufficient evidence that he misused his authority or directed municipal staff to perform the trimming. In its verdict, the court acquitted the officer of all allegations related to property damage and unauthorized tree-cutting. The judge noted that the case file did not meet the level of certainty required for a criminal conviction and emphasized that obtaining permits and verifying land boundaries is the responsibility of the municipality, not the officer. The officer, represented by lawyer Mohammed Abdullah Al Redha, pointed out inconsistencies in witness statements and gaps in the evidence. The case arose after a complaint that tree-cutting near a private farm in Wadi Al Amardi had damaged part of an aluminum fence. He said he only shared the location of obstructing branches with municipal staff and later met an inspector on-site to indicate the area affecting traffic flow. During questioning, a municipality supervisor claimed he trimmed the branches because the officer, in uniform, indicated that permission from the farm's management had been secured. Instructions for pruning were issued by the municipality, not the officer. The court added that the officer's actions were intended to address a public obstruction, not commit an offence. The defense also noted that verifying permits falls under municipal responsibilities. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish criminal intent, a key requirement for charges of property damage or unlawful tree-cutting. He said he was unaware of who carried out the trimming and only relayed the location of branches extending into the street. Lawyer Al Redha stressed contradictions in testimonies and argued that no independent evidence proved the officer had instructed anyone to cut the trees. Municipal teams had earlier visited the area following reports that overhanging branches were obstructing a nearby road. Court documents show the incident was first reported on October 26 last year at 4:30 p.m., when a patrol met the complainant, who claimed municipal crews had cut trees along the property boundary, allegedly damaging the fence. The patrol documented the scene and filed a report. Investigations revealed that the officer's involvement stemmed from a neighbour's request. The officer denied this, insisting he never issued instructions, claimed permission, or supervised the work. The ruling highlighted that the officer's role was limited to guiding municipal employees to the site and coordinating with the farm manager. Since legal requirements for conviction under the Crimes and Penalties Law were not met, the court acquitted the officer and dismissed the case under Article 212 of the Criminal Procedures Law.
