Acquittal before Supreme court – because the threat was too unrealistic

It belongs to the standard repertoire of a defender, to complain before the court that the prosecution has not led the criminal investigation, fair. The complaint on the violation of the charge principle, so that the Accused does not know exactly what allegations it must defend usually.

In the current case, had to deal with the Supreme court a at the time of the 65-year-old, former Banker, to have simulated a 25-year-old specialist woman's health. In his plea, the defender has now moved in a kind of leather, such as is heard in the often austere atmosphere of a court room.

"Refined a criminal case into"

All the way got your fat – the alleged victim, the state attorney, the circuit court. In the criminal complaint, the woman was an intrigue. With a "perfidious, lying, and constructed criminal charges" have you brought the former Banker "in a refined way, a criminal case".

The state attorney he accused of a "gross bias". He spoke of the "massive arbitrary" and a "grossly illegal process" when the fundamental rights of the accused blatantly disrespected, Yes "feet" came to be. On the Basis of "vague statements" gave it a "thin indictment".

harassment were a little intense

the first district court assessed the existing evidence in a way that "is not comprehensible, Yes, absurd." The court did not look at the intrigue of the alleged victim. It had been led by the woman and the state attorney, which would have done to his client, "wrong", "misleading".

had already spoken of this district court of the former Banker, who lives for many years, as Hausmann Substantially from the six-figure income of his wife from the charges of attempted assault, committed by Stalking. The specialist women's health, had need to changing your phone number because he was trying to contact you for three months, practically on a daily basis via SMS, Whatsapp, Facebook, E-Mail, or telephone, you had chosen a different way to work, because he abpasste, she had temporarily stayed with a friend, and to your future career to be feared. However, for the district court "was not exceeded due to the number of messages and the time duration of the harassment, the usually tolerated Mass is still so clear" that this could be qualified as a form of coercion.

threat and slander

the man from the district court, was Convicted, however, because of the threat and because of multiple libel. The 65 is supposed to have threatened-Year-old towards the young woman, a third person, the teeth were negative, he should meet this one day in a certain Eastern European country. In addition, he should have the HR Manager and operations Manager of the care home, for which the woman worked, among other things, told the woman to go up in the Morning in the output, and then come straight to work. The patient, you give the wrong medication.

According to the defenders of the challenged before the Supreme court, the convictions and an acquittal called for, there is no proof that the threat against the third person. The defender had also represented the – erroneous – view that it was not a threat, if a third person will be a serious disadvantage in view.

Also, the slander has been denied. Because the allegedly libelous information that have passed on to his client that he had of the young woman herself told. He didn't want to draw the attention of the nursing home is the only "concrete evidence of maladministration". He had not been aware that he'll throw a bad light on the young woman.

all is free

spoken in The high court acquitted the former Banker, however, with arguments that had nothing to do with the plea of the defender. For a conviction for a threat it was not necessary that the Manifestation that had in fact fallen, is to be taken seriously. You had to be Threatened with being taken seriously. Exactly, but you could not go out. It was unlikely that the brawl could have been in that Eastern European country. Because all Parties were domiciled in Switzerland.

Also the charge of multiple libel was for legal reasons. The opposite of the HR managers and the operations Manager made Comments would have only affected the professional honor. These enjoys but not the criminal-law protection. With the allegations of the application, to be an honorable man had not been lowered. (Tages-Anzeiger.ch/Newsnet)

Created: 16.01.2019, 17:12 PM