On October 14, 2022, the Hajdúböszörmény District Court announced a verdict in the case of the four defendants who attacked police officers in Hajdúböszörmény as a group.
The court found the four defendants guilty of the crime of group violence against an official, and the first-rate defendant of the misdemeanor of light bodily harm.
Therefore, he sentenced the first-rate defendant to 4 years in prison as a cumulative punishment and banned him from practicing public affairs for 4 years. The court sentenced the third-rate defendant to 3 years in prison, while the second-rate defendant was sentenced to 1 year 6 months – suspended for 3 years – in a juvenile detention center, while the fourth-rate defendant was sentenced to 2 years in prison, the execution of which was also suspended for 3 years.
According to the facts established by the court, on June 28, 2018, around 8 p.m. in Hajdúböszörmény, the local police took action due to a riot committed by a group. The first-rate defendant, who was still cooperating with the police at the time, sat in the right rear seat of the police car without applying handcuffs for the purpose of his production at the request of the uniformed officers. A policeman also sat next to the defendant to guard him. The first accused pulled down the right rear window of the service car and opened the door. The police car then stopped after a few meters and the policeman on guard closed the rear door, reaching over the accused. The service vehicle started again, but the first-rate defendant opened the right rear door again, which the police officer wanted to close again. At that time, the first-rate defendant began to insult the policeman, who also attacked him while sitting in the car. With clenched fists, he punched the police officer several times in the head. The patrolman was defending himself, so the blows did not reach him. The police car then stopped, and the violent act was noticed by the third-rate defendant, who was on the street next to the vehicle, and almost immediately stepped next to the left side of the service car, opened the door, and punched the policeman sitting there. At the moment of the impact, the policeman wanted to handcuff the first-rate defendant, who was still in the vehicle at the time, but the use of the coercive device was prevented by the violent acts of the third- and fourth-rate defendants. Another police officer approached the service car, noticed the attack by the first-rate defendant, and attempted to pull the man away from his colleague. He was prevented from doing so by the second-rate juvenile girl behind him, who was tugging at the police officer’s uniform.
When the police could have continued using coercive means after the violence against them had stopped, the first-rate defendant was no longer in the police car because he was pulled out of the vehicle by the fourth-rate defendant. The abused policeman got out of the service vehicle and was threatened with death by the first-rate defendant who kicked him on one occasion, causing him an injury that healed within eight days. After that, the accused fled to the yard of a nearby property. One of the policemen approached the gate of the property in order to carry out the arrest, but the juvenile second-order accused stood in front of him and stood in the way of the uniformed officer, whose chest he pushed several times, with great force, with his palm.
The defendants committed the crime at the same place, at the same time, with their factual behavior for the same purpose, knowing each other’s actions and with a unity of intent, which intent was aimed at forcibly thwarting, or at least obstructing, the police action taken against the first defendant. The entire crime was recorded by a nearby surveillance camera.
Judge Balázs Rozsnyai, Dr., during the justification of the sentence, assessed the persistent, rough, and seriously disturbing public tranquility – visible in the surveillance camera recording – as an aggravating circumstance. At the same time, he took into account as mitigating circumstances the significant passage of time and the fact that the adult defendants have no criminal record, and three defendants have not committed another crime since the crime.
The decision of the Hajdúböszörmény District Court is not final. The prosecution, as well as the fourth-ranking defendant and his defense attorney, reserved three working days to think about the declaration of legal remedy. In contrast, the first-, second-, and third-ranking defendants and their defense attorneys appealed against the verdict. The case continues at the Debrecen Court.
Debrecen Court
