Here it is not a normal case

If a prisoner Post from his lawyer gets, applies a simple rule: "A content Review of the correspondence and legal documents is not permitted." So it is in the criminal code. And also the social worker who had been in jail, among other things, the order to control the Post of a 22-year-old prisoners knew.

In September of 2015, the woman opened a letter to the 22-Year-old addressed. Because the Envelope was not written as usual in such cases, "attorney mail," or "Lawyer", realized only when, through reading, that you are not allowed what you just did, do. In the normal case, the mean were: the letter, the recipient and the accidental Open excuse.

The man should. not be there

But this was not a normal case The man had been convicted of attempted grievous bodily harm, where the sentence of imprisonment was deferred in favor of a stationary therapy. Therefore, he sat in the forensic Psychiatric Department (FPA) of the prison Pöschwies.

right there, but the man is not supposed to be. Because the official referee had strongly discouraged him in the FPA. Contrary to the recommendation it had placed the office for judicial enforcement, however, there is a case of "clear exceeded its powers", such as the administrative court noted critically.

the man try That the Therapy is a form of opposition, therefore, was as clear as the recommendation of the Prosecutor in the controversial Letter, he should make due to the bad experiences continue to want to be in this place, no therapy.

"I'm with me in the Pure"

Back to the social worker: Because she kept the letter for the therapy to be relevant, informed the employees of the Department to a lunch rapport orally on its content. Later, she summed up the "recommendations" of the lawyer even in the EPO's internal documentation system, in which the psychiatric and psycho-therapeutic treatments in the execution of Measures to be recorded.

The letter had surprised and irritated, she said in front of the district court of Dielsdorf. For it was clear that the therapists had to know the attitude of the young man. They had felt obliged to the content. Finally, we have on this Department, try to therapy and re-socialization of prisoners, also have a responsibility towards the state and the society.

it was at that time relatively inexperienced. But also from more experienced colleagues as they had been when Rapport is not corrected, even though you haven't even asked what she should do. A colleague, whose Name was not wanted to enter in court the price, have you encouraged even to the note in the documentation system, which began with the remark: "A' non-declared ' attorney's letter revealed ..." in Short: "I'm on my own," says the social worker.

woman was argued sentenced

her lawyer, the woman didn't reveal a secret to unauthorized third parties. The employees had been entitled to obtain information from the documentation system. Unauthorized have had no access. You have also betrayed no official secrecy, but with the transmission of Information only "to your order correctly and with due care, comply with, and the persons responsible of the enforcement of relevant events". You have acted in the performance of their duties.

The district court saw it differently. The content of a lawyer letter, so it is not a safety hazard, is a mystery whose only addressee is the client of the lawyer. All others are unauthorized third parties. The woman could invoke neither a business need nor a legal duty of care to a lack of consciousness of injustice. She was neither entitled nor obliged to inform the colleagues about the letter content.

due to multiple violation of official Secrecy condemned woman does not understand the world anymore: "I'm just doing my job." It was at that time at least for a long time and encouraged to make the entry in the System. Now you stand alone in court, while all the others would save her. "I'm a pawn and am burned out." The court of first instance decided, in accordance with the letter of the law and not according to common sense.

In one respect, the Latter is not the case, The court refused in spite of conviction, to a penalty. According to the penal code, that is possible, "if guilt and consequences of the offence are slightly". The advantage of this solution is that The conviction is not registered in the criminal register, the woman will be placed in it professionally no obstacles in the way.

Speaking of the profession: The place of the event you no longer works already for a long time. Where she works now, don't want to say. It should remain your secret. (Tages-Anzeiger)

Created: 13.03.2019, 11:08 PM