Allegations of violence are a 3-year-old policeman’s nightmare: now the state will pay impressive compensation

Today, Airidas J. has already returned to normal life, he recovered his job and in April the Supreme Court of Lithuania refused to consider the appeal filed by the Ministry of Justice, for which the State will have to pay a solid amount . To the boy.

As the Šiauliai Regional Court ruled, Airidas suffered significant damage as a result of the illegal opening of an investigation against him, wrongful convictions for violation of public order.

You will be paid 10 thousand. 8,157 euros for damages, as well as 8,157 euros for property damage, which he spent on lawyers and did not earn when he was fired from the police.

The aggressors were found by the victims themselves

This whole story began with a fight in the coastal town, at the “Jūra” bar, on the night of November 5, 2016. The assailants then interrogated the car, beating and suspending the two girls and the boy for no reason.

“We left the bar with my friends, three guys ran towards us and hurried. They kicked me in the leg, then they hit me in the face with their hand, ”said one of the victims about the outbreak of violence, which began for no reason.

The assailants danced in a close friend’s car and blew up, turning to the police the next day. Although the scene was filmed, the videos were blurry and did not help the officers much.

However, the detective work was done by the victims themselves. One of the girls recalled that during the fight, someone yelled, “Airi, stop!”

With such an offer ending, he began searching Facebook for people named Airid or Airis until he finally found a profile that recognized the abuser in his photos. She passed this information on to the police.

Officers then handed the girl photos of 5 different men, who immediately saw her finger on Airid J. This is how the suspect was identified.

I thought it was a mistake

When Airid J. himself was summoned to the police for a fight a few months later, he was convinced that some mistake had been made.

“I immediately gave detailed testimonies that I was not even in the coastal city that night, and the last time I visited that place was 3 years ago,” Airid said.

The boy claimed that he had spent that night with a girl, had gone to Šiauliai, then brought her home and returned to his parents himself. As proof of his innocence, he also sent messages to a friend at the same time that he allegedly participated in the clashes.

A few months later, the investigation was terminated without sufficient evidence of guilt. However, the prosecutor soon reversed his decision, although no new data emerged.

Airid and another guy who admitted to being at the bar that night but denied participating in the fight appeared in court. Both defendants claimed that they did not know each other and met for the first time in the courtroom.

By the way, the victims themselves had been beheaded and the third attacker had been identified by law enforcement, but according to phone records, the police undoubtedly established that he was in Klaipeda that night, thus withdrawing the suspicions against him.

The Supreme Court questioned the guilt

Both defendants were found guilty in the Tauragė District Court, and this sentence was later confirmed by the Klaipėda Regional Court.

The convicted Airid L. was immediately fired and not only received a fine of € 3,389 for breach of public order, but also had to pay back money for his studies at the Police College for not working for 5 years.

“I was left without any livelihood, I had to borrow money to pay a fine,” recalls Airid.

However, he did not give up and filed a complaint with the Lithuanian Supreme Court, where it was questioned whether the guy was really guilty.

“There is no basis to accept the arguments of the courts of first and first instance, since their conclusions were reached without carrying out any procedure to establish all the relevant circumstances of the case, the evaluation of the evidence was superficial, it did not explain the conclusions logically, and not all measures were taken to examine and eliminate the objections in detail. ”, – spoke the judges of the SCL.

In its ruling, the SCL even listed an error made by several courts that heard the case. It was noted that several witnesses claimed that larger and larger individuals were involved in the fighting.

In addition, the courts did not delve into the video of the fighting and simply announced that they did not deny the guilt of those convicted.

Not a single witness in the bar said they had not seen the convicts in the fight and said there was great chaos at the time.

It was also questioned whether the suspects were found on Facebook and whether victims in the dark could really clearly see and notice the attackers.

Airid himself asked to investigate the videos, obtain images of the bar, demand the clippings of his phone, but such requests were denied. Taking these circumstances into account, the SCL judges observed that in this case the individuals were convicted not on the basis of indisputable evidence, but on the basis of speculation.

“The defendant is not obliged to prove his innocence and the burden of proof cannot be transferred to him, but any doubt must be weighed in favor of the defendant. The Court of Appeal did not respond to the merits of the convicted appeal. , approving the conclusions of the Court of First Instance without substantial grounds, so it is obvious that this restricted the right of the appellants in cassation to a fair court and a full examination of their appeals ”, decided LAT.

Following this decision, the case was returned to the Klaipėda Regional Court, where after re-examining all the evidence, it was decided to acquit both convicts without proving that they had committed a crime. The prosecution also had the task of reopening the investigation and finding the real culprits.

Proven solid compensation

Following this decision, Airid L. returned to work for the police, but that did not end their fight. The guy went to court to claim damages for both the unreasonable initiation of the investigation and the wrongful conviction.

“Where the tax authorities <...> had committed a more diligent and comprehensive performance of their duties, had not committed a serious violation of the rules of the Criminal Procedure Code that regulate the identification procedure, the pre-trial investigation could have been terminated before such adverse consequences arose, friends , relatives before he was fired from the internal service, “said Airid in his complaint.

He explained that not only had his reputation been severely damaged all the time, but his health had also deteriorated: he had to take medication to fall asleep, he experienced constant feelings of insecurity and spiritual experiences.

The fact that the Attorney General’s Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Police acted lawfully in this case, and the mere fact that Airid was acquitted, does not mean that he was harmed in any way.

“The police officers themselves were misled by the misidentification of the victim,” police said in court, but authorities were unable to prove their position.

The court noted that the investigating officers and the prosecutor had made no effort to clarify and assess the circumstances justifying the plaintiff.

“The accusation for breach of the prosecutor’s duty of diligence by failing to gather sufficient evidence that the plaintiff committed the crime for which he is accused went to the judicial stage of the process,” the court said.

It was also found that the Court of First Instance had acted negligently in sentencing by not adequately evaluating the evidence in the case, had made an error that was material to the violation of the plaintiff’s rights in the criminal process and did not rectify in the first appeal.

“A clear violation of the court’s duty to examine and evaluate the evidence and substantiate the court’s conclusions, a fundamental violation of the CCP provisions governing personal identification, which is considered an illegal judicial act leading to the unlawful conviction of the plaintiff , which forces the State to respond. The court assessed that it had accepted all the findings of the trial court and that this was the basis for the state’s civil liability to arise, ”the court said.

The court determined that illegal procedural measures had been taken in the case, as a result of which Airid had been wrongly recognized, and therefore an illegal act of the State had been established.