When a person — whether an accused or a victim — is summoned to give statements in a criminal matter, the first question that comes to mind is deceptively simple yet legally precise: may they bring their lawyer along? The correct answer only becomes clear once we identify the procedural stage involved: is the person before a judicial enforcement officer during the evidence-gathering stage, or before a member of the Public Prosecution during the investigation stage? Confusing the two stages may cost the accused or the victim a fundamental safeguard guaranteed by the UAE legislator, and may cause statements to be recorded in the wrong legal context.

Does a Lawyer Have the Right to Attend the Investigation of the Accused or the Victim Under UAE Law?

The UAE legislator reorganized this matter in the Criminal Procedure Law in force since 1 March 2023. The distinction between the work of judicial enforcement officers and the investigation by the Public Prosecution appears in the very structure of the law: Book Two, titled “Investigation of Crimes, Gathering and Examination of Evidence,” separates them into two distinct chapters — Chapter One, “Gathering Evidence by Judicial Enforcement Officers,” and Chapter Two, “Investigation by the Public Prosecution.” This is therefore an explicit structural distinction, not a mere inference, and it produces differences in the nature of the procedure, the evidential weight of statements, and where the lawyer’s right is located. The following is a detailed account.

First: The Three Stages of a Criminal Case at a Glance

Most criminal cases pass through three successive stages, each with a different competent authority and nature; understanding this sequence is the key to knowing the lawyer’s right to attend:

Second: Who Are Judicial Enforcement Officers? And the Evidence-Gathering Stage

An important terminological note: the law does not use the word “police” for this stage; it uses the term “judicial enforcement officers.” Police officers are only one category — albeit the most prominent in practice — of several categories set out by the law. A judicial enforcement officer is an official granted by law a capacity enabling them to investigate crimes, search for their perpetrators, and gather the necessary information and evidence, each within their jurisdiction.

The Criminal Procedure Law sets out the categories of judicial enforcement officers as follows:

• Members of the Public Prosecution.
• Police officers, their non-commissioned officers, and personnel.
• Officers, non-commissioned officers, and personnel of the Border and Coast Guard.
• Officers, non-commissioned officers, and personnel working at the State’s ports — sea, air, and land — whether police or armed forces.
• Officers and non-commissioned officers of Civil Defense.
• Employees granted the capacity of judicial enforcement officers under applicable laws, decrees, and decisions.

The law also permits granting this capacity to certain employees by a decision of the Minister of Justice or the head of the competent local judicial authority, limited to crimes connected with their duties. Notably, members of the Public Prosecution are themselves judicial enforcement officers, although they conduct the investigation later in their judicial capacity as part of the judicial authority.

This stage is expressly provided for in the law; it is allotted Chapter One of Book Two, titled “Gathering Evidence by Judicial Enforcement Officers,” and its terms — such as “evidence-gathering procedures” and “evidence-gathering minutes” — appear in the law. Judicial enforcement officers investigate crimes, search for perpetrators, and gather evidence; they may hear the statements of anyone with information about a crime, question the accused, and seek the assistance of experts, all under the supervision of the Attorney General, to whom they are subordinate.

What is recorded at this stage is called “statements,” a preliminary procedure subject to the same confidentiality as investigation procedures. As a rule, a judicial enforcement officer may not administer the oath to witnesses, except where it is feared the testimony cannot be heard later.

Essential note: the legislator did not include, in the provisions governing the evidence-gathering stage, any express text establishing the lawyer’s right to attend the hearing of the accused’s statements before the judicial enforcement officer — unlike what it did expressly for the investigation stage before the Public Prosecution. The right to silence remains the most prominent safeguard for the accused at this stage, alongside the right not to be subjected to any coercion, since any evidence obtained through torture or treatment that degrades dignity is null.

Third: Investigation Before the Public Prosecution

This stage differs fundamentally from the preceding one; the Public Prosecution is part of the judicial authority and conducts investigation and accusation in crimes. It conducts the investigation itself, mandatorily in felonies and in misdemeanors if it sees fit. The member of the Public Prosecution carries out the investigation procedures and records them in minutes signed by them and the clerk, kept in the case file.

The precise legal term for questioning the accused at this stage is “interrogation”; upon the accused’s first appearance, the member of the Public Prosecution records the data establishing their identity, informs them of the charge attributed to them, and records their statements in the minutes. Investigation procedures and their results remain among the secrets whose disclosure is punishable by the penalty prescribed for the crime of disclosing secrets.

Fourth: The Difference Between Evidence Gathering, Investigation, Statements and Interrogation

This table summarizes the practical differences that produce important legal effects, foremost of which is where the lawyer’s right to attend is located:

Fifth: The Accused’s Lawyer’s Right to Attend the Investigation — The Rule

Here lies the heart of the matter. The Criminal Procedure Law established a clear rule: the accused’s lawyer must be enabled to attend the investigation with the accused and to review the case papers. This is a mandatory wording that makes enabling the lawyer the rule and principle, not a mere permission, and it comprises two linked matters: attendance during the accused’s interrogation, and review of the case file.

This legislative direction is confirmed in other provisions keen on maintaining the accused’s contact with their lawyer; even when the Public Prosecution orders that an accused held in remand not communicate with other detainees, their right to always communicate privately with their defense counsel remains intact and inviolable.

Sixth: The “Interest of the Investigation” Exception and the Limits of the Right

The mandatory rule does not mean the right is absolute and unconditional. The legislator included, in the same provision, an exception whereby the member of the Public Prosecution may decide otherwise if the interest of the investigation so requires — that is, to organize or restrict the lawyer’s attendance at a particular procedure, within their discretion and for considerations of the investigation’s interest.

Seventh: The Victim’s Right to Attend with Their Lawyer

If the law expressly established the right of the accused’s lawyer to attend, where does the victim stand? The mandatory text on enabling the lawyer was issued specifically regarding the accused’s lawyer; for the victim, the basis of their right to engage a lawyer and have them attend is their capacity as a party to the litigation through a civil claim; anyone who suffers direct personal harm from the crime may bring a civil claim against the accused during evidence gathering, during the investigation, or before the court, up until the close of pleadings, thereby acquiring the capacity of a party, which allows them to participate in the proceedings and be represented by a lawyer.

The essential difference, then: the right of the accused’s lawyer to attend is an express, mandatory text, whereas the victim’s right derives from their capacity as a party and their general right to representation, not from an equivalent text.

Eighth: Cases Where the Lawyer’s Attendance Is Mandatory or Special

Alongside the general rule, the legislator singled out cases where the lawyer’s role intensifies or attendance becomes mandatory:

Ninth: Practical Guidance for the Accused and the Victim

To activate these safeguards in practice, the following is advised:

Frequently Asked Questions