The Court of Appeals ordered the detention of the defendant, who faces a total of 11 charges, including domestic violence, harassment, threats, and psychological abuse, until his next court appearance, overturning a lower court’s decision to release him on probation, after determining that there is a risk of reoffending.
The decision, dated September 17, was issued following an appeal by the Attorney General against the trial court’s decision, which had granted the defendant conditional release. The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court erred in its assessment of the risk of reoffending and overturned the decision granting him conditional release.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The case involves a total of 11 charges, including assault resulting in actual bodily injury, joint assault, malicious damage, harassment, threats, and psychological abuse.
The prosecution had initially requested that the defendant be remanded in custody, citing both the risk of flight and the risk of reoffending. Among the evidence presented to the court were prior convictions for theft and malicious damage, as well as other pending criminal cases against him, including cases involving child sexual abuse and the distribution of pornographic material.
However, the trial court had ruled that there was insufficient evidence to justify detention, imposing specific conditions instead.
The Court of Appeals, in reviewing the Attorney General’s appeal, cited case law stating that, in order to order detention on the grounds of risk of reoffending, it is not necessary to prove with certainty that the defendant will commit a new offense. It is sufficient, as stated in the decision, that there be a strong impression that such a possibility exists, based on the totality of the evidence presented to the Court, since the likelihood of committing other offenses may arise either from evidence derived from the defendant’s history or the facts of the case, or from intrinsic indications characteristic of the particular nature of the case.
The court attached particular importance to the fact that the offenses with which he is charged were allegedly committed while the defendant was on conditional release in connection with other criminal cases.
“We note once again that there are other pending cases against the respondent in which conditions have been imposed to ensure his appearance in court for their hearings. It appears that the offenses attributed to him in the present case were committed during the period in which the defendant was free under conditions imposed to ensure his appearance before the other courts where his cases are pending,” it noted.
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals added that the withdrawal of a complaint by the complainant does not eliminate the risk of reoffending. As stated in the decision, “the complainant’s desire not to proceed with the case or the withdrawal of the complaint in no way affects the matter under consideration,” as the issue under consideration at this stage is the likelihood of a new offense being committed.
The Court of Appeals noted that “the trial court erred in ordering the conditional release of the respondent.”
“The risk of reoffending is, in our view, more than evident and has been proven, to the extent and at the level required in cases of this nature, not only by the existing indictment but also by the pending cases against the defendant,” it added.
Consequently, the Court of Appeals ruled that the defendant’s detention was justified and ordered that he remain in custody until his next court appearance.
Source: CNA
