The flood flooded the accused's farm, but the court did not postpone his trial. RPO intervenes

Accused of having drugs, he could not be present at the appeal hearing in September 2024, because the flood flooded his farm. The court of second instance, despite such a conclusion, did not postpone the hearing, indicating the presence of a defender in court. The Ombudsman submitted a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court in the case.

As the RPO office pointed out on Wednesday, informing about the complex cassation, although the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the absence of the accused, which was properly notified, does not prevent the procedural actions, if his defender is present, but this possibility “should be used carefully and carefully”.

“The ability to carry out activities without the participation of a party represented by a defender concerns the situation when the party, due to his absence, tries to lead to the so -called procedural obstruction. In this case, it cannot be mentioned, because the accused was present at all dissertations in the court of first instance and actively implemented his right to defense” – indicated the RPO office, quoting the arguments presented in the cassation of the RPO Stanisław Totociek.

In the case, the man was convicted of, among others For possession of a small amount of drugs and the District Court imposed 4 thousand. PLN fine. His defender appealed against the judgment.

The man was notified of the date of the appeal hearing set for September 27, 2024. Meanwhile, in September last year Central Europe – including in Poland, especially in the Dolnośląskie and Opolskie voivodships – were affected by a vast flood.

Two days before the deadline for the hearing set on September 27, the accused requested a change to court. “He justified this with a flood on his farm and the fight against the element, which prevents him from appearing, and he really cares about participating in the trial,” reported the RPO office.

At the hearing on September 27, 2024, the accused was not present, his defender appeared. The District Court did not grant the application to postpone the hearing. “He justified this by the fact that the accused was correctly notified of the deadline, and his participation in the trial is not obligatory, because his defender participates in it,” he was reported.

After despairing the case, the District Court maintained the judgment of the first instance. According to the ROP in this situation, “there was a hearing without the participation of the accused, which was unacceptable to his justified failure.” The postponement of the trial in such a situation – in the opinion of the spokesman – it was all the more necessary because the appeal concerned the entire judgment of the first instance and the fact that the act was committed by the accused was committed.

“This led to the deprivation of the accused with the right to personal defense and violation of the rule of reliable trial,” emphasized the RPO assessing the conduct of the trial without the accused.

Therefore, in a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman requested that the judgment of the District Court be set aside and the case is referred back to the second instance. (PAP)

MJA/ ITM/