Introduction:
Merely mentioning the existence of criminal liability arising from the act of another is enough to raise concern, given that the general principle in criminal law is the "personal nature of punishment", meaning that a person should not be held accountable for a crime that was not the result of their own criminal activity.
Criminal liability for the act of another has garnered significant attention since the early 19th century due to the widespread use of machinery and working on behalf of others, whether individuals or legal entities. This opened the door to expanding the scope of liability for the more economically powerful party, such as factory owners or commercial institutions, for crimes committed by their employees or subordinates during and because of their work duties.
The trend toward expanding criminal liability for the acts of others has prevailed, particularly in economic crimes, due to the economic crises caused by World War II, which necessitated state intervention to regulate such matters.
With the evolution of modern industries and the increase in industrial accidents, laws in various countries began requiring employers to fulfill specific obligations. Any failure or violation of these obligations results in criminal liability, even if the act was committed by an employee or worker. This is because the law imposes these duties personally on the employer as the primary beneficiary.
This article explores the extent to which an individual can be held criminally liable for the act of another under UAE criminal law, relying on legal texts and general principles, with practical examples.
First: General Rule – No Crime or Punishment Except for the Perpetrator
The general rule in criminal law is based on the principle of personal criminal responsibility, meaning an individual is only held accountable for their own actions and is not punished for a crime committed by someone else. However, this rule has exceptions in certain specific cases defined by law, under which a person may be held accountable for a crime committed by another, under strict conditions.
The UAE Penal Code (Federal Decree-Law No. 36 of 2022) affirms this in Article 33, which states:
"A person shall not be held accountable for a crime unless it is the result of their own criminal conduct..."
This affirms the principle of justice in criminal law, where criminal liability and punishment require both the physical and mental elements of the crime to be present in the perpetrator and not transferred to others unless explicitly stated by law.
Second: Exceptions to the General Rule under UAE Law
Despite the clarity of the general rule, there are certain cases in which a person may be held liable for the act of another under specific conditions. The most notable of these cases are:
1. Liability of a Superior for the Acts of a Subordinate (in Civil and Criminal Law)
This typically arises in civil law but may have criminal implications when negligence leads to a criminal offense.
Example: An employer who neglects to supervise their employees, and this negligence leads to a crime or violation (e.g., an industrial disaster), may be held criminally liable for negligence, though not for the actual criminal act itself.
Practical example: If a chemical plant manager is aware of a safety system failure and fails to act, and an explosion occurs causing deaths, the manager may be charged with involuntary manslaughter due to negligence.
2. Liability of a Legal Entity for Acts Committed by Its Representatives
According to Article 66 of the UAE Penal Code:
"Legal persons, except for government entities and public authorities or institutions, shall be criminally liable for crimes committed by their representatives, directors, or agents in their name or on their behalf."
Practical example: If a company illegally disposes of toxic waste into the sea through its employees, the company can be held criminally liable for the environmental offense, as the act was committed in its name and interest.
This principle reflects that any director or manager of an institution is obliged to comply with the law and is held responsible for any unlawful acts committed by their subordinates during and due to the performance of their official duties. This is not a case of vicarious criminality, but rather presumed fault, as the subordinate's misconduct suggests a failure in the superior's legal obligations.
3. Incitement or Assistance – A Form of Participation, Not Liability for the Act of Another
Incitement, aiding, and abetting are considered forms of joint criminal liability, not liability for the act of another, as the accomplice possesses their own criminal intent.
Practical example: If someone incites another to commit theft, they are punished as an instigator, even if they did not physically participate in the theft.
Conclusion:
UAE law upholds the principle of personal criminal responsibility, but it also acknowledges a number of exceptions where one may be held accountable for the acts or mistakes of another, under stringent legal conditions that aim to balance justice with societal oversight.
These provisions reflect the UAE legislature's commitment to reinforcing social responsibility and legal compliance, without undermining individual rights and justice guarantees. It is always essential to distinguish between direct and indirect criminal responsibility, and to carefully assess the individual's intent and the surrounding circumstances before assigning liability
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
