Why Does the Principle of “No Appellant Shall Be Prejudiced by His Own Appeal” Yield Before Them?

Not all legal rules possess the same force and effect. Some procedural rules are designed to regulate litigation and safeguard the rights of defense, while other rules derive from Sharia and are concerned with the protection of human life and the preservation of blood rights, which constitute among the highest objectives of Islamic law. When a conflict arises between the two, UAE legislation and federal jurisprudence have resolved the matter unequivocally: the protection of human life takes precedence over procedural constraints, and the principle that “an appellant shall not be prejudiced by his own appeal” cannot stand in the way of the mandatory award of Diyah or Arsh whenever their legal and Sharia requirements are satisfied.
 

The United Arab Emirates has developed a unique legal system that successfully combines the authenticity of Islamic Sharia with the modernity of contemporary legislation. As a result, the rules governing Diyah and Arsh form an integral part of its criminal justice framework. Accordingly, Article 1 of Federal Decree-Law No. 31 of 2021 on Crimes and Penalties provides for the application of Islamic Sharia provisions to Hudud, Qisas, and Diyah offences, thereby affirming that such rules are not merely historical concepts but binding legislative and judicial obligations.
 

Diyah may be defined as the monetary compensation prescribed by Sharia for offences against human life, such as accidental killing or quasi-intentional homicide. It is not merely a sum payable to the heirs of the deceased; rather, it constitutes a Sharia-based sanction imposed upon the offender to protect human life and deter unlawful conduct. UAE law has fixed the amount of Diyah for accidental death at AED 200,000, recognizing it as a mandatory right whenever its legal conditions are fulfilled.
 

Arsh, on the other hand, refers to financial compensation awarded for bodily injuries that do not result in death but cause damage to an organ or impairment of a bodily function. In some cases, Arsh is specifically prescribed by Sharia, such as the loss of an eye, the amputation of a finger, or the loss of the function of a particular organ. In other cases, where no predetermined amount exists, the concept of Judicial Assessment of Compensation (Hukumat Al-'Adl), sometimes referred to as Governmental Diyah, becomes applicable.
 

Judicial Assessment of Compensation represents one of the most flexible manifestations of justice in Islamic jurisprudence and judicial practice. It addresses injuries for which no fixed compensation is prescribed in Sharia sources, including certain fractures, deformities, and partial disabilities. In such circumstances, the court determines appropriate compensation based on medical reports, the degree of disability, and the impact of the injury on the victim's life, thereby ensuring fairness without excess or deficiency. Islamic jurisprudence thus ensures that a person's rights are not lost merely because no specific textual valuation exists, leaving room for judicial discretion to achieve equitable redress and protect individual rights.
 

The most significant aspect of this legal framework emerges when a court fails to award Diyah or Arsh and the convicted defendant alone files an appeal. This raises an important legal question: may the appellate court award Diyah for the first time even though the defendant is the sole appellant, or does the principle that an appellant may not be prejudiced by his own appeal prevent such a result?
 

At first glance, the answer may appear straightforward. The established procedural rule dictates that an appellant's position should not become worse as a result of exercising the right of appeal, thereby encouraging litigants to challenge judgments without fear of adverse consequences. However, the matter is fundamentally different where Diyah and Arsh are concerned. In such cases, the issue is not a discretionary penalty or an ordinary financial fine, but rather a Sharia-based obligation relating to blood rights that cannot be waived or suspended due to judicial error or omission.

This issue was conclusively addressed by the UAE Federal Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2023. The case concerned a traffic accident that resulted in the death of two individuals. Although the trial court convicted the defendant and imposed imprisonment and a fine, it failed to award the prescribed Diyah. When the defendant appealed seeking acquittal, the question arose as to whether the appellate court could impose Diyah notwithstanding that doing so would place the appellant in a less favorable legal position.
 

The Federal Supreme Court resolved the issue decisively. It held that Diyah constitutes an original Sharia penalty inherently linked to the establishment of the offence of accidental killing and that courts are obliged to award it whenever its legal basis exists, even if the trial court failed to do so. The Court further emphasized that the principle that an appellant should not be prejudiced by his own appeal cannot serve as a justification for suspending a definitive Sharia rule relating to the protection of blood rights, since mandatory provisions of Islamic Sharia prevail over ordinary procedural limitations.
 

Herein lies the distinctive character of UAE law. Diyah is not regarded merely as financial compensation that may be overlooked or waived. Rather, it is considered a mandatory Sharia right that cannot be lost because of deficiencies in a judgment or shortcomings in judicial reasoning. Consequently, when an appellate court awards Diyah in such circumstances, it is not aggravating the defendant's punishment because of the appeal; rather, it is correcting a legal error and giving effect to a rule that was applicable from the outset.
 

This judicial approach reflects a profound legal philosophy founded upon the principle that the protection of human life transcends procedural and formal considerations. True justice cannot be achieved if the rights of the heirs of the deceased are lost as a result of judicial oversight. For this reason, the principle that an appellant shall not be prejudiced by his own appeal yields whenever Diyah and Arsh are involved, as Islamic Sharia places the protection of blood rights above many procedural rules of positive law.
 

Ultimately, Diyah, Arsh, and Judicial Assessment of Compensation are not merely financial awards or rigid jurisprudential concepts. Rather, they constitute a comprehensive legal system designed to protect human life, preserve human dignity, and provide effective redress for harm. UAE courts have successfully established the important principle that Sharia rules relating to blood rights cannot be frustrated by procedural technicalities and that genuine justice begins with the protection of human life above all other considerations.