On February 8, 2023, the Debrecen General Court, as a court of second instance, announced a decision in a public meeting in the criminal case of the four defendants who were found guilty of the crime of violence against an official. The first-rate defendant was also responsible for his actions for the offense of light bodily harm.
The second-instance court changed the sentence imposed by the Hajdúböszörmény District Court on October 14, 2022, in relation to the first and third-order defendants, while upholding it in the case of the second-and fourth-order defendants.
In the case of the first-degree defendant, the court of the second instance reduced the 4-year prison sentence to 3 years and banned him from practicing public affairs for 3 years instead of 4 years, while for the third-degree defendant, his 3-year prison sentence was reduced to 2 years and suspended its execution for a 3-year probationary period. The sentence of the second-ranking accused is legally suspended for a probationary period of 1 year 6 months – 3 years, while the fourth-ranking accused was sentenced by the court to 2 years in prison, the execution of which was suspended for a 3-year probationary period.
According to the facts legally established by the court, on June 28, 2018, around 8:00 p.m., the local police in Hajdúböszörmény 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 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 officer, whose chest he pushed several times, with great force.
Judge Dr. Mariann Hutkai, the president of the criminal council, said that the court saw the mitigation of the punishment of the first and third-degree defendants as justified because nearly four and a half years have passed since the crime was committed, which is a significant passage of time that cannot be blamed on the defendants. The first accused was a young adult at the time of the crime. At the time of the crime, the third-rate defendant had no criminal record, and since then no further criminal proceedings have been initiated against him or the first-rate defendant.
The judgment is final.
Debrecen Court
