The Judgement of 05 October 2010 3rd Chamber for Contentious Administrative Court, states that there entitled to compensation for lack of liability of the Administration in the irregularities in police custody and detained subsequent decision to throw out the window of a court.
A) The Board 3 of the TS ratifies the decision rejecting the claim of liability of the administration, as there is no causal link between the way that developed the custody of the son of the appellant, and detainee's subsequent decision to commit suicide or throw-away-from the window of the court premises where he was.
A) The Board 3 of the TS ratifies the decision rejecting the claim of liability of the administration, as there is no causal link between the way that developed the custody of the son of the appellant, and detainee's subsequent decision to commit suicide or throw-away-from the window of the court premises where he was.
.
Specifically, the statement notes that the irregularities could be in police custody can not be considered efficient cause of the subsequent suicide of the accused if the latter was already on remand and had been given an unconditional sentence of imprisonment against him, and declares that while the existence of a window without bars could be considered abnormal in a prison, it is not a court, and this is because the Courts are not intended principal residence of persons deprived of their freedom or the placement of the mentally disturbed, and consequently do not appreciate the existence of guilt "in watching."
B) The late after rendering a judicial finding after which the Judge left the office and waited in the corridor to be notified of the arrest without bail the contents of which had been advanced by the court. In that timeout, which lasted about twenty minutes, the detainee was sitting, handcuffed and guarded by two police officers, and that while holding a conversation with his lawyer and made some comments to the cops. At one point the detainee got up slowly, he stepped on the cigarette butt and ran through the hallway window to the courtyard, at which time one of the officers tried unsuccessfully to restrain him the pants, falling from a height of two floors and striking his head.
.
As stated in a judicial proceeding on the same day 03.07.2000, a detainee died at sixteen hours and ten minutes of that day in the General Hospital. It then initiated the appropriate legal action for the death of the latter, whose performances ended up being shelved seen no criminal liability.
C) Based on these facts, the mother of the deceased appellant filed two complaints: one of Liability of Directors and a responsibility for abnormal operation Administration of Justice.
in the administrative record on the latter, the General Council of the Judiciary issued report, which asserted the existence of irregularities in the administration of justice in three ways: police detention lasted longer than strictly necessary; hygienic conditions of the cell were unacceptable, and were at fault in keeping an eye on court premises. However, the two claims were dismissed by resolution of the Ministry of Interior of 18 November 2003 and by administrative silence respectively.
not agree with it came the mother of the deceased the appellant the courts. Without expressly ruling on the compatibility of two different compensation claims, subject to different legal regimes in part, by the same injurious event, the contested decision rejecting the claim, concluding that, in any case, there is no causal link between the way in which developed in custody and the subsequent decision to throw himself out the window of courts.
Specifically, the contested decision shows that the irregularities could be in police custody can not be considered efficient cause of the subsequent suicide of the accused if the latter was already on remand and had arrest warrant was issued against him unconditionally, and also notes that, although the existence of a window without bars have been accused of being abnormal in prison can not say so in a building housing a court. Add provided in this respect that the policing response to the usual pattern in similar cases.
D) For the Supreme Court was likely to occur and abnormal functioning of public service, as noted by the report of the General Council of the Judiciary. But the irregularity of the police action can not be regarded as causally determining the decision of the son of appellant to throw out the window of a second plant.
Nothing in human experience to date indicates that, having suffered a particularly harsh police custody, is often a "desperate attempt to escape" very likely leading to death. There is no rational basis for such inference.
.
The illegality of police conduct, if indeed any, it is not subject to this process, no right to compensation for the consequences of an act which, far from being a necessary consequence of it, due to a spontaneous decision the son of the appellant. Therefore, for the TS the reasoning of the contested decision is quite compelling, and inevitably share the wise words with which he concludes: "The true motives of human behavior often beyond the knowledge of others and belong to the mystery of the person."
Moreover, the existence of an open window in a court premises can not be described as abnormal functioning of the Administration of Justice, unlike what would happen in other public institutions, and this is because the Courts and Tribunals main aim of stay of persons deprived of liberty or the placement of the mentally disturbed. It is significant that the report itself of the Supreme Judicial Council, how severe was the way in which developed in custody, do not reproach to this other issue.
can not, well, talking about guilt in watching, nor would it be correct to say that the existence of an open window, which undoubtedly made it physically possible to the fatal decision of the appellant's son jumping into the void-rate leads to the violation of any legal duty by the Administration of Justice. Under these conditions, the state of the police station at the time of the events lack any causal relevance, and this is because causation due to inactivity or omission, as it would in this case, in which the appellant complains that the Administration of Justice to have killed his son, but have tolerated a situation that made it possible-requires the breach of legal duty.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment