Read until the end for an AI summary of the court’s rulings in my case.
Two years ago, while training for my last fight, I knocked out my sparring partner. I wasn’t trying to hurt him. I hit him with an overhand right but it wasn’t a hard punch. We were on the tail end of a bunch of rounds and both tired. He came to and on the way to the bathroom, collapsed. They had to rush him to the hospital and put him in a medically induced coma. His brain was swelling.
A few hours later, I got a call from the cops. They asked me to come give a statement. They’d reviewed the CCTV from the gym and assured me I wasn’t in any trouble. We were in a boxing ring, training, with protective gear on. But the procedure was they had to put a travel ban on me, in the event there was a criminal case.
A year went by with no updates. I had to hire a lawyer to talk to the cops to try to get the travel ban lifted. Hamad Al Zarouni; look him up on IG @lawindxb and tell him I sent you. My sparring partner was out of the coma, but he was fully disabled and in another hospital for rehab.
Do you remember the last fight in Snatch when Mickey gets knocked down, and has to stay down because the fight is fixed? He stands up and knocks out his opponent. And Turkish says, “Now, we are fucked.” That was me.
A few weeks after I hired my lawyer I get a call from Dubai Prosecution. They wanted to interview me. So I go in an recount the story as best I can. They tell me, “You are accused of accidentally causing injury to this man that resulted in permanent disability. Are you guilty of this?” My brain froze. I had to ask them to repeat the question. I said no, I’m not guilty.
About a month after the meeting with Dubai Prosecution I got a call and text on a Thursday telling me to show up for a court date on Monday. I’d kept my cool up until this point but now I was starting to worry. I message my lawyer and he’s on vacation. So I ask him to recommend someone and he refers me to a criminal defense lawyer, Saeed Al Ghailani. This guy charges 100,000 Dirhams ($27,000) per case. And he only accepts payment in full, in advance. But Hamad negotiated a massive discount on my behalf.
I meet Saeed and he goes to work. He messages me the night before and tells me they’ve prepared a defense and I’m in a good position. That put me at ease a little.
We show up to court and the judge asks me, how do you plead? I say not guilty. They make me wait in a holding area while they process the verdict. Saeed texts me, you win, they found you not guilty. Oooff. What a relief. I felt like I had shrugged off a massive weight. I ask Saeed when he’ll be able to remove the travel ban. He says give him a few weeks.
A few days later, Saeed texts me. The prosecutor appealed the court’s verdict. We have to show up in court again. But my court date was a couple of months later.
So we show up, and Saeed does his thing. He wins again. Not guilty. OK, NOW we’re done, I think.
Nope. The prosecutor appealed AGAIN. This time the case goes to the Cassation Court of Dubai, which is the highest court in the land, sort of like the Supreme Court. I didn’t have to show up for this one. Saeed went himself. The court dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal on a technicality, which you’ll see below. Saeed texts me. We won again. And for the last time.
This was a week before my mother was scheduled to have a heart operation. I went to the police station to get my travel ban lifted a couple of days before flying to Sri Lanka. The timing was impeccable.
Alhamdulillah.
The number one lesson I took from this is to be responsible for my sparring partner’s safety. I’ve relived the session so many times in my head. He was a novice. He was tired and hurt. I could see it. Why didn’t he quit? He knew he was tired too. But we did another round. I should have told my coach to stop him. I shouldn’t have hit him with that overhand. I was a lot heavier than him. I should have gone for body shots.
I’m glad the case went my way. But I’m going to have to answer for this on the Day of Judgment. I can only hope God is more merciful.
Summary of the court’s ruling in simple English
The Incident:
- Two men, Nabeel Azeez and [sparring partner], were boxing at a sports club in Dubai (Al Barsha area) on February 16, 2023
- During the boxing match, Nabeel punched [sparring partner] in the face
- [sparring partner] suffered severe injuries resulting in 100% permanent disability
The Legal Case:
- Criminal Charges: The prosecution charged Nabeel with causing injury through negligence
- First Court: Found Nabeel NOT GUILTY and acquitted him
- First Appeal: The prosecution appealed, but the appeals court agreed with the acquittal
- Final Appeal: The prosecution appealed again to the highest court (cassation), which also rejected their appeal
Why Nabeel Was Found Not Guilty: The courts ruled that Nabeel was protected by a legal principle that says violence during sports is not a crime if:
- The sport is legal (boxing is legal)
- It happens within the normal rules of the game
- The person takes proper precautions and follows safety rules
- It was unintentional (not done on purpose to hurt someone)
- There was no evidence Nabeel broke boxing rules or failed to be careful
The Bottom Line: Even though [sparring partner] was permanently disabled, the courts decided this was a tragic accident that happened during legitimate sports activity, not a crime. The law recognizes that contact sports like boxing carry inherent risks, and participants accept these risks when they choose to participate.
Why the Misdemeanor Court acquitted the defendant
The Misdemeanor (Trial) Court acquitted Nabeel Azeez based on these specific reasons:
- Legal Justification – Article 54 The court cited Article 54 of the UAE Crimes and Penalties Law, which states that violence during sports is NOT a crime if:
- Done with good intention
- Within the normal rules of the sport
- With proper caution and care
- The sport is legally authorized
- No danger to public security
- No Evidence of Wrongdoing The court found that the case files were “devoid of anything indicating” that Nabeel:
- Failed to follow proper boxing rules
- Failed to observe caution and care during the match
- Intended to hurt his opponent
- The Injury Was Accidental The court determined that [sparring partner]’s injury:
- Happened “unintentionally” (عفواً)
- Occurred with “good intention” from Nabeel
- Was part of a legal boxing match
- Posed no danger to public security
- Insufficient Evidence for Conviction The court stated the prosecution’s evidence was “below the sufficiency threshold” to prove criminal charges. In criminal law, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- The Defendant’s Consistent Denial Nabeel denied the charges “in all stages of the case,” and combined with the lack of evidence, this created reasonable doubt.
The Bottom Line: The trial court essentially said: “This was a tragic accident during a legitimate boxing match. There’s no evidence Nabeel did anything wrong or violated any rules. Boxing is a legal sport with inherent risks, and unfortunate injuries during proper play don’t constitute a crime.”
Why the Appellate Court upheld the ruling
The document doesn’t provide the appellate court’s specific reasoning, but it tells us something important: the appellate court upheld the trial court’s judgment “for its reasons” (المؤيد لأسبابه).
This means the appellate court:
- Adopted the Trial Court’s Reasoning Rather than writing new reasons, the appellate court essentially said “we agree with everything the trial court said.” This is a common practice when an appeals court finds the lower court’s analysis to be correct and complete.
- Found No Errors By upholding the judgment, the appellate court determined that:
- The trial court correctly applied the law about sports activities being justified
- The evidence supported the finding that this was a normal boxing accident
- There was no proof Nabeel violated boxing rules or safety procedures
- The prosecution failed to prove criminal negligence
- Agreed with the Key Finding The appellate court agreed that the incident fell under Article 54’s protection for sports activities – meaning violence during legitimate sports (when following the rules and being careful) is not a crime.
Why This Matters: Having two courts independently reach the same conclusion strengthened the judgment. When the prosecution appealed to the cassation court, they were fighting against two courts that had already agreed Nabeel should be acquitted. This made it even harder for the prosecution to succeed in their final appeal.
Why the Cassation Court rejected the appeal
The cassation court rejected the appeal for these key reasons:
- Limited Scope of Review The cassation court explained that it cannot re-examine the facts of the case. It can only check if the lower courts applied the law correctly and if their reasoning was logical.
- The Lower Courts’ Authority The cassation court stated that trial courts have the exclusive authority to:
- Evaluate witness testimony
- Assess evidence
- Determine what actually happened
- Decide if justification defenses (like sports activities) apply
- Sound Legal Reasoning The cassation court found that the lower courts:
- Properly examined all the evidence
- Applied the correct law (Article 54 about sports activities being justified)
- Reached a logical conclusion based on the evidence
- Had the right to doubt the prosecution’s case (and doubt = acquittal)
- The Prosecution’s Arguments Were “Substantive” The prosecution was essentially arguing “the court got the facts wrong” – saying Nabeel didn’t follow boxing rules and wasn’t careful. But the cassation court said this is a factual dispute, not a legal error, and they can’t overturn decisions just because they might interpret facts differently.
In Simple Terms: The cassation court basically said: “The lower courts did their job properly. They looked at the evidence and decided Nabeel was boxing normally and legally. We can’t second-guess their factual findings just because the prosecution disagrees. No legal errors were made, so the acquittal stands.”