A man fighting the effects of the floods could not attend the trial. The court rejected his motion for adjournment and upheld his sentence. Now the Ombudsman is filing a cassation, claiming that there has been a serious violation of the rights of defence.
The flood prevented the appearance, the court passed judgement anyway
In 2024, the confederate Poland suffered a tragic flood. 1 of the residents of the area flooded by the nature, previously sentenced by the territory Court, requested a postponement of the appeal hearing. Reason? Fighting the effects of a cataclysm. However, the territory Court did not respond to his request and retained his conviction even though the suspect could not participate in the proceedings.
The case active a charge of possession of drugs (Article 62(1) and (3) of the Anti-Drug Act) and driving a vehicle under the influence of drugs (Article 178(1) of the Criminal Code). First instance court fined PLN 4 thousand. The man made an appeal, however, 2 days before the proceeding (designated 27 September 2024) requested a postponement – due to the request to defend his holding from flooding. A akin motion was made by his defence attorney.
The territory Court rejected both applications, arguing that the defendant's participation was not compulsory and that a judgement could be given in his absence.
RPO: Right of defence violated
The Ombudsman considered this decision to be a gross violation of procedural rules. Deputy RPO Stanislaw Trociuk challenged the judgment, indicating that:
‘This was a failure to take into account the defendant’s and his defence for postponement of the appeal. In the aftermath of the trial, the suspect was not involved, which was unacceptable to the defendant's excused non-contribution. This has led to the accused being deprived of his right of individual defence and breach of the rule of a fair trial."
The RPO emphasises that according to Article 6k. The suspect has the right to defend himself in both formal and material terms. It besides refers to the ultimate Court case law which indicates that the provision Article 117 § 3a k.p.k. (authorising the examination of a case without the defendant) cannot be applied in specified a way as to restrict the right of defence.
‘It follows from the ratio legis Article 117 § 3a of the General Court that the anticipation of carrying out an activity without the participation of the organization represented by the defender concerns the situation where the organization tries to lead to procedural obstruction through his absence. In this case, there can be no specified thing as the accused was present at all court-martials in the first instance and actively exercised his rights of defence.”
What's next on the case?
The RPO requests that the judgement be repealed and that the case be re-examined. The case may become a precedent in the context of the rights of those affected by natural disasters.
Continued here:
The court did not take into account the requests of the flood-fighting organization and issued a judgement – the RPO intervened
