The prosecutor's failure to speak in the given time – a contempt of court

November 13, 2024

In the judgment of the Economic Affairs Court dated December 20, 2023, the Client represented by attorney at law Armands Rasa was found not guilty and acquitted of charges under Section 177, Part One of the Criminal Law for fraudulently obtaining another person’s property, as well as under Section 195, Part One, for laundering criminally obtained financial assets.

The decision of the Riga Regional Court on May 27, 2024, which completely overturned the Economic Affairs Court’s judgment of December 20, 2023, and sent the case back for re-examination by the court of first instance, served as the basis for filing a cassation complaint. The Client’s defence, attorney at law Armands Rasa, requested the annulment of this decision and the termination of the criminal proceedings, arguing that the Economic Affairs Court had rightly concluded that no criminal offense had occurred.

The cassation complaint was based on several arguments, including that the court of appeals violated Sections 17 and 18 of the Criminal Procedure Law and incorrectly applied Section 566 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The court of appeals made an erroneous decision based on an incomplete evaluation of the court session and audio recordings and also breached the principle of judicial neutrality as established in Section 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia. The Client’s defence, attorney at law Armands Rasa, believes that the court of first instance rightly concluded that his client did not commit a criminal offense, and the court of appeals had no grounds to overturn this judgment.

The Senate had to evaluate whether the decision of the court of first instance to interrupt the prosecutor’s speech, considering the previously set speaking time at the prosecutor’s own request, constitutes a significant violation of the Criminal Procedure Law, and whether the court of appeals, by overturning this decision and remanding the case for reconsideration, adhered to the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law. The court of appeals ruled that the court of first instance had violated the prosecutor’s rights to a fair trial, procedural equality, and other legal provisions, which consequently led to an unlawful decision.

The Senate, upon reviewing the arguments of the court of appeals, concluded that the court of appeals had failed to consider the factual circumstances of the case and had incorrectly applied case law, as the legal circumstances in this case differed. Specifically, the decision analysed the issue of limiting the defence attorney’s speech during the trial, where the opinions of the parties involved regarding the duration of the debate had not been heard or considered. Furthermore, the court of appeals did not provide adequate reasoning as to why the limitation of the prosecutor’s speech would constitute a significant violation of procedural rights in this specific case.

The Senate emphasized that the court of first instance had ensured equal opportunities for all participants in the case by reasonably determining the duration of the debate. The prosecutor spoke within the initially set 1,5 – hour time frame, with the court’s permission, for an additional 20 minutes. After that, the prosecutor’s speech was interrupted, citing his inability to present arguments coherently. The Senate noted that the court of appeal’s comment regarding the right to limit speaking time should be understood as a measure of judicial organization to ensure procedural efficiency, rather than a basis for concluding a violation of the prosecutor’s rights.

Considering all of these aspects, the Senate concluded that the court of appeal’s findings regarding violations of procedural rights, including violations of the right to a fair trial and the principle of procedural equality, were erroneous and unfounded.

The Senate found that the court of appeals had insufficiently justified its conclusion regarding the existence of a violation and had incorrectly applied the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law. The court pointed out that the judgment of the first instance should be based on the evidence examined during the court hearing, rather than solely on the arguments made during the court debates. Since the court of appeals had not considered the case on its merits, the Senate decided to annul its decision and remand the case for reconsideration.