In criminal law, timing can be just as decisive as substance. A legislative amendment introduced midway through proceedings may fundamentally alter the legal position of an accused, sometimes in ways that are not immediately obvious. The principle requiring courts to apply the more lenient law, where it is enacted prior to a final judgment, has long been recognised in UAE jurisprudence, specifically under Article 14(1) of Federal Decree-Law No. 31 of 2021 Promulgating the Crimes and Penalties Law (the “Criminal Law”). Yet, its practical scope continues to evolve, particularly in cases involving deportation.
In a recent ruling by the UAE’s Federal Supreme Court, Criminal Appeal No. 1670 of 2025 dated 25 March 2026, illustrates this evolution with notable clarity. The case concerned a non-citizen convicted of drug-related offences, where the lower courts had imposed a fine and ordered deportation following the completion of the sentence. While the conviction itself was not the central issue before the Court, the deportation order was.
A Legislative Shift with Practical Consequences
During the course of the proceedings, a legislative amendment came into force, modifying the legal framework that governs the deportation penalty in drug-related offences. Pursuant to Federal Decree-Law No. 14 of 2025, Article 75 of Federal Decree-Law No. (30) of 2021 On Combating Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances (the “Narcotics Law”) was amended. The amendment came into effect on 1 January 2026.
Under the amended provision, deportation remains the default position. However, it is no longer imposed without qualification. The amended article sets out specific exceptions, particularly where:
- The convicted person, at the time of committing the offence, was the spouse of, or a first-degree blood relative of, a UAE national.
- The convicted person is a member of a family residing in the State, and the court determines that deportation would result in serious harm to the stability of the family or deprive one of its members of necessary care or support, and the court establishes that the family has the financial capacity to provide treatment for the convicted person.
In practice, this is likely to become a key issue which most litigation lawyers will focus on moving forward. The amendment introduces a structured limitation on what had previously been, in many cases, an almost automatic measure. It signals a clear legislative intent: while deportation remains an important tool, it should not be applied in a way that produces disproportionate hardship in clearly defined circumstances.
The Court’s Approach: Substance Over Formality
The Federal Supreme Court approached the matter with a clear focus on the substance of the change the amendment of Article 75 introduced. It did not treat the amendment as merely procedural or peripheral. Instead, it recognised that the new provision created a more favourable legal position for the accused.
What stands out in the Court’s reasoning is its interpretation of what constitutes a “more lenient law”. The amendment did not reduce the primary sentence; nor did it alter the elements of the offence. Yet, by introducing the possibility of avoiding deportation, it materially improved the accused’s position. The Court accepted that this was sufficient to trigger the application of the more lenient law pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Criminal Law.
In doing so, the Court reaffirmed that leniency is not confined to imprisonment terms or fines. It extends to any legal consequence that affects the individual’s rights, status, or ability to remain in the country.
Why the Case Was Remitted
Rather than deciding the issue outright, the Court set aside the deportation order and referred the matter back to the lower court. The Court’s approach reflects the proper limits of appellate review, not its hesitation.
Determining whether the accused falls within the statutory exceptions under Article 75 (as amended), requires a detailed assessment of facts, nature of family relationships, degree of dependency, and the extent of harm that deportation might cause. These are matters that must be examined before the trial court, while benefiting from the presented evidence and, where necessary, witness testimony.
The Supreme Court’s role was to ensure that the correct legal framework was applied. Once it identified that the amended law must apply to the case, it was for the trial court to carry out the factual inquiry.
A More Nuanced View of Deportation
The broader significance of this development lies in how deportation is now understood within the criminal justice system. The measure remains firmly in place, particularly in the context of drug offences governed by the Narcotics Law. However, it is no longer applied in isolation from the individual’s personal and family circumstances.
The Narcotics Law, as amended, recognises that deportation may have consequences extending beyond the offender, potentially affecting spouses, children, and dependents. By introducing narrowly defined exceptions under Article 75, the legislature has created space for a more balanced assessment that considers both public interest and private hardship.
Implications for Legal Practice
For practitioners, this shift has immediate and practical implications:
- First: it is no longer sufficient to argue against deportation on general grounds of hardship. The argument must be anchored in the statutory framework, specifically the exceptions set out in Article 75 of the Narcotics Law as amended.
- Second: evidence needs to be decisive. Documentation regarding family ties, financial dependency, medical needs, and living arrangements may be relevant. In practice, these arguments will stand or fall depending on the quality of the supporting evidence.
- Third: the timing of legislative changes should not be overlooked. When a more favourable law comes into force, before a case is finally determined, it must be considered in accordance with Article 14(1) of the Criminal Law. This concept remains applicable even if the underlying conduct occurred before the amendment was enacted.
Closing Observations
This Supreme Court’s ruling reflects a steady and considered development within the criminal legal framework in the UAE. It does not signal a retreat from firm enforcement, particularly in relation to drug offences. Rather, it demonstrates clear willingness to ensure that legal outcomes remain proportionate and aligned with evolving legislative policy.
For those advising clients facing potential deportation, the message is equally clear. The legal landscape has become more nuanced. This development presents the opportunity to advance more tailored and fact-specific arguments, as well as a responsibility of careful preparation and precise legal analysis to support them.
Seek Legal Counsel
Should you wish to further discuss this development or require assistance with any matters relating to this topic, please feel free to contact our Counsel Mohamed Salama at Habib Al Mulla and Partners.
Disclaimer
The content provided in this article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of this information, the article does not offer a guarantee or warranty regarding its content. The matters discussed in this article are subject to interpretation, and legal outcomes may vary based on specific facts and circumstances. We recommend that readers seek individual legal counsel before making any decisions based on the information provided. If you require specific legal advice, please contact us directly.