The court room is opened, but the case has been transferred to a bigger room allowing more people to attend. The judge asks whether there are any further case documents. The prosecutor submits a letter from the Chief of police to the State Prosecutor dated 10th of January 2011 as well as an e-mail from a police investigator to the State Prosecutor, dated 22nd of February.
The judge asks: “Anything from the defense?”
Katrín Oddsdóttir, counselor for the defense, says no and the judge asks the defense to begin their case. Katrín begins: “Honorable court, honorable representatives of the prosecutions. It is demanded that all charges against my clients, Snorra Páli Jónssyni and Sunnevu Ásu Weisshappel, be dismissed. Furthermore it is demanded that all expenses fall on the state.”
Katrín says she will comment briefly on each part of the case, for the sake of illuminating the context and she points out that she has drawn up a time line detailing the chronology of the events, which can be found in the case documents of the defense. Katrín points out that the charge is dated on the 21st of January 2011, more than 20 months since the alleged violations took place. Furthermore, she informs the court that the charge is dated on the same day that the trial against the so-called Reykjavik Nine ended. “In that case there were charges in connections with protests in the house of parliament which happened on the 8th of December 2008. That case received great attention from both media and the public and was spoken of as the Reykjavik Nine case, where nine people were accused of very serious crimes, such as an attack on parliament under article 100 of the Icelandic penal code. My client, Snorri Páll Jónsson, was one of the nine charged in said case. [...] Snorri was in fact acquitted of all charges, but this case had been going on for about 2 years.”
Katrín points out that with this current case, Snorri will continue to be held captive by the justice system.
“It is the understanding of my clients that violations against such important rules of conduct in handling cases have been made that it calls for the case’ dismissal [...] I shall elaborate on it further.”
“As can been seen the police investigation of my clients’ alleged violations concluded, or could have been concluded, much before both the first and subsequent charges in the case against the Reykjavik Nine were submitted. [...] In article 143 of codes of conduct in the handling of criminal offences nr. 88/2008 it says, with the court’s permission: “If a man is charged for more than one offense it shall be done in one case as can best be done.” This rule is part of a legal human right my clients have for a just handling of their case. The rule is there for the individual who is charged who should not have to endure a case against him be dragged out excessively by police, prosecution or the courts.”
Katrín points out that delay in cases may cause confusion as well as incurring more costs for the defendant, who cannot know whether a case will be made against him or not. “He cannot therefore plan his future with the same level of freedom as the next person, unless the aforementioned rule be respected by the authorities in question.”
Katrín supports her case by referencing a Supreme Court ruling in the case of falsified paintings, where the Supreme Court found that a delay in the investigation of a case and a violation of the right to have all charges taken up at once, may be grounds for dismissal. In that particular case the court did not dismiss the case as the investigation of the case was considered to be both complex and wide ranging and charges kept coming in. It can therefore be assumed that had the investigation not been so complex and wide ranging that the Supreme Court would have accepted a demand for dismissal.
“It is clear that similar provisions are not applicable to the case of my clients. Here, almost no investigation has been needed, the case being in the hands of the police from the beginning, who had the initiative in interacting with my clients and proceeded to arrest them and locked them up over night. No provisions of complex investigations can therefore apply and it is right to dismiss the case on grounds of excessive delay as well as the violation of the right to have all of ones cases taken up together.”
Katrín then proceeds to elaborate on rules regarding avoidance of unnecessary delay in cases.
“This rule is one of the main rules of conduct in Icelandic criminal cases [...] defendants have a right to a just and public case proceeding within an appropriate time frame. This rule applies to each level of a case [it's court confirmation, original charge, main trial etc.], both before and after an official charge has been given.”
Katrín quotes Meginreglur sakamálaréttarfars, by Eiríkur Tómasson, where it says that where authorities have done nothing with a case for a long while, through no fault of the defendant, it is considered to be an excessive delay. Katrín furthermore reminds the court that the alleged offenses in this case happened in the spring of 2009. “Judging from the case documents we can see that the Chief of Police in Reykjavik did not send the case to the State Prosecutor until the 10th of January 2011. The case was therefore sitting on the police’ desk for 20 months before it was sent to the prosecution! Here it needs to be highlighted once more the small scale and non-complex the alleged offenses my clients are accused of.”
Katrín points the court to the defendants court documents – to an investigation into recent rulings where individuals have been charged for violating article 106 of the Icelandic penal code [the same article under which the two defendants here are charged], but in said investigation it is stated that approximately 7.6 months on average pass between an offense and it’s subsequent charge.
“In the case of my clients, however, the police holds onto the case for 20 months, before finally sending it to the State Prosecutor who whips up his charge 10 days later, which has to be considered quick compared to the police, without – it seems – inquiring whether the defendants had other cases in the justice system!”
[The prosecutor looks up and seems to make a grimace of contempt]
“Here we can see both extremes in the speed in the case’s process, both of which are flaws in the court procedures of my clients case, […] It’s necessary to follow the court procedures diligently before taking the decision to press charges. In this obligatory research there is obviously included the obligation of the Prosecutor’s Office to check if there is another suit being brought upon the same party.”
“If the facts of the circumstances are to be taken into account, the graph [that shows the average process time for comparable cases] that this case is unique in regards to the violation of the police of the rule of speedy trial and these violations are subject to dismissal (of the case) […] The violations of the police of the rule of a speedy trial is especially reprehensible when it is regarded in context to the conduct of the police in the case taken as a whole, but I’m compelled to go briefly over that part for the sake of context.”
Katrín now points out that the accused were subjected to excessive force by the police during their arrest and can, in order to proof that, provide both pictures and a doctors certificate testifying to the injuries, that is if the case is not dismissed. [Both the judge and the prosecution look up when these words are spoken.]
“Nothing in the police reports explains how these injuries could have been sustained, but my clients will explain that for the court if that becomes necessary. Katrín also says that there is substantial doubt as to whether the police intervention of the accused can be considered normal and justifiable. She also reminds the court that there are at least three different and conflicting reasons expounded for why the accused Snorri Páll was arrested this particular night. In the first version he is said to have spat on a policeman, then he is accused to have been drunk in public, and then he is said to have been “arrested when the police intended to have dealings with him”. Katrín points out how conflicting the last reason given truly is and says it’s comparable to finishing a cake to sample it.
“The accused Sunneva is said to have been arrested “for interfering in the arrest of another person”. Even though the police reports are in agreement that Snorri was arrested after the arrest of Sunneva. The accused are held in prison cells over night without any clear reasons being given for doing so. That sort of captivity is illegal according the 2. – 16. article of the police law no. 90/1996 that states that “no man can be detained for longer then is necessary.” […] The police’s conduct toward my clients violates in it’s totality agains the rule of proportionality and sadly seems to be characterized by the police contempt for my clients and their opinions. The incident takes place shortly after the pots and pans revolution, where my clients and other people from their group, were very visible in the public protests. In the wake of those circumstances unexplained interference’s by the police became a daily occurrence and this case that is now being brought forth seems to be some sort of climax of those interference’s. ”
Katrín now goes into the reprehensible participation of the prosecutions office which she points out, could have dropped the charges when it became clear that another case was already under way against Snorri Páll, where he was charged with similar offenses [it's should be stated that Snorri was of course acquitted of all charges in the first case], the offense are beside that also petty and no public interests call for the continuation of the charges. “Even though the accused both have a clean criminal record, and the alleged offense took place 21 month ago, the prosecutions office did not drop the charges and therefore we are here today, with the defendant Snorri Páll Jónsson, who spends almost all his days lately here in the district court without grounds. Katrín also points out that Snorri’s case has been bumbling about in the judicial system for 14 months “and now that stay is supposed to be prolonged for such petty reasons. At the same time the burden on the judicial system is growing heavier the prosecution is coarsely and brutally bringing this case against a man who before has been charged in one of the most extensive court case in recent memory. It’s a basic point that the judicial powers should put limits to the police and the prosecution as to hinder the change of rule of law to allow for certain individuals to be held hostage by the judicial system for no or very petty charges. Or in the worst case for nothing more than to be considered undesirable individuals in the eyes of the authorities for their opinions or conduct.”
Katrín closes her speech by reiterate Snorri’s and Sunneva’s motion for dismissal on the grounds of the violations she has stated. She also stresses that the culpable delays of the police has been the cause for charges not being brought forth in this case until the trial had finished in another criminal case against the defendant, Snorri Páll Jónsson. “This sort of judicial procedures is not in line with the judicial conditions who should not have to suffer prolonged trials like those that are being attempted. My clients could not expect to be charged for the alleged offenses that have been brought forth here, almost two years after they are said to have committed.” Katrín says that these sort of errors in the procedures of the case in whole, both from the police and the prosecution, calls for dismissal of the case from the court, since the process the accused have been subjected to does not comply to the rules of fair trial stated in the 70.th article in the constitution and the 6.th article of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
“Referring to all of what has brought forth here my clients submit a motion for dismissal of the case from court.
On behalf of my clients I reiterate the demands and move the case into verdict with all customary reservations.”
———————————-
The judge asks the prosecution to speak.
“Honorable court, respectable defendant.
On behalf of the public prosecution I put forth a motion for the rejection of the motion for dismissal. The motion is based on the assumptions that the defendant Snorri Páll could have planed to have been charged in one and the same case. […] It should be stated that there was only a question of another case against Snorri but not Sunneva.” The prosecutor points out that according to laws the police and the prosecutions office should make a speedy investigation and the filing of charges as it is possible, so that there is no obligation involved. The prosecution reiterates the possession that in this case it would not have been possible to speed up the process of the case since the Reykjavik Nine case is extensive and special, the defendants were nine in total, and “the behavior that is being charged for is completely unrelated to the Reykjavik Nine case and took place many months after those incidents (the visit of rvk9 to the parliament 8th of December). And therefore considers that it would have been abnormal to pull her into that case, and likewise would it have been abnormal to split the case and have a separate trial for Snorri and Sunneva apart.
The prosecution now goes into what she says are the repeated attempts of the police to get in contact to Sunneva and claims that the delay in the investigation of the case and the publising of the accusations is in totality the fault of Sunneva. “The prosecution demanded to be given a copy of the emails of the detective, it was presented in the beginning of the proceedings. Especially it shall be stressed that the police man (detective) states that he had tried to reach Sunneva and therefore explained how the delay can be traced to her. After that (getting in touch with her) the process of the case was swift.
The prosecution states that the courts have so far made excessive delays to a reason for lower sentencing. She rejects the view that the supreme courts ruling, which the defense referred to, can be used for comparison with this case, since the delays can not be traced to how complicated the case is and rejects the counter inference of the defense, that the supreme court had accepted the motion for dismissal in the above mentioned case, had there not been a complicated investigation. The prosecution states that the defendants should have been aware that the incident was under investigation, especially Sunneva, since the police had tried to contact her. “The conduct that they are being charged for is considered punishable and no conditions are present to close the case with any other way than a indictment. The conditions for repealing the case were not present since no confession was made. With reference to these facts the motion for dismissal is rejected. It is also rejected that the prosecutions office have postponed issuing the indictment until the Reykjavík 9 case was finished, the date is only a coincident, as it is not consistent with the prosecutions procedures to delay cases against the accused Snorri Páll on purpose. It should also be stated referring to what the defense stated about nothing being done in the case for months I refer to emails of the detective. This case was being acted on up until the 30. of December 2010. Considering this, honorable court, the motion or dismissal should be rejected.
—————————–
Defence speaks again:
“I want to talk about the main point of the prosecution, that the delay was in some way the fault of my client. This is completely rejected. It’s welcome that that the aforementioned email was submitted […] It is also rejected that Sunneva avoided communications. Her friend returned the call of the police for her, and they said that they would call again, but they never did. It’s also simply wrong to state that this delay is Sunnevas fault. What was the police going to investigate anyway, 17 months after the alleged violations are supposed to have taken place? And why didn’t they try to reach Snorri? What kind of working methods is the police using by sending emails 17 months after the fact?
Katrín emphasizes that the Reykjavík Nine case and this case are not at all unrelated, contrary to the claims of the prosecution. In this case the indictment is pressing charges for violations of the same laws. Regarding the claim of the prosecution that the defendants should have been aware that the ongoing investigation of the case Katrín states: Of course Sunneva can assume that when 21 months have passed since she was arrested and manhandled by the police that the case is closed.” Katrín also points out that the arguments of the prosecution, stating that it would have been abnormal to split the case into two part since it wouldn’t have been beneficial, are strange and she asks, beneficial for whom? “The work methods used in this case are very peculiar, they excuse nothing and they explain nothing. Truly Sunneva can not be blamed for the delay in this case but I concur with the prosecution that it can not be blamed for the delay of the case. Ten days can be considered a rather short time to finish work on a case […] of course the prosecution has authorization to chose not to prosecute in the case, especially considering the situation that has arisen in the case of the Reykjavík Nine.
I reiterate what has been said and I reiterate all of my clients demands. I put the case forth to a judicial ruling.”
—————————–
The prosecutor answers the defendant:
“First of it shall be made known that the email from 14. October is not the first attempt of the police to contact Sunneva. First an attempt was made to reach her through phone […] Therefore it’s not possible to interpret these things in the way the defendant does. Secondly it’s highly unusual that Sunneva would not her self contact the police but instead ask her friend to do so […] Regarding Snorri Páll, he refused to speak with the police and therefore could not be be expected to cooperate more. About splitting the case, it’s first and foremost to the benefits of the courts to not do so […] As to not call in witnesses two times as well for the defendants them self. I object to the claim that the case was dealt with in an abnormally quick fashion, it’s not complicated and no reason to delay it further. There were no grounds to dismiss the case since there is no admission of guilt. I reiterate the aforementioned demands and put the case forth to a judicial ruling.”
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] In English. [...]
Post a Comment