Mullah Krekar set custody for four weeks, it emerges in the ruling from Oslo District Court.
The ruling came Friday afternoon.
Police petitioned Mullah Krekar custody on the basis of statements he has come in two television interviews, NRK and a Kurdish TV channel.
Krekar is partly charged with threats to Halmat Goran. Goran is one of Kurds Krekar has previously been convicted for threatening, something mullah serving a sentence for until January this year.
The Court concludes that detention will not be a disproportionate interference in the matter . The request for detention is therefore to follow, writes Oslo District Court in its ruling.
– We are pleased that we have been heard with our arguments, police said VG.
Krekar was arrested Thursday and prepared for imprisonment in the Oslo District Court Friday . Soon after the remand hearing said police attorney Vegard Rødås that it could be relevant enterrorsiktelse against Mullah Krekar.
– It’s going to be appealed on the basis that we believe it is incorrect and the way the court considers the statements on . We menet it is the same statements that are repeated and this must at least have an impact on recurrence risk, unless the court agrees that there is double punishment, says Brynjar Meling, Krekar’s lawyer, told VG.
When the appeal will be submitted is somewhat uncertain. Krekar itself is still not informed ruling.
– I still have not come through to the central jail so Krekar is not informed yet, says Meling.
Here are the full verdict:
Najumuddin Faraj Ahmad, born 7 July 1956, was arrested by police on 26 February 2015 charged with a criminal offense § 140 and § 227 Penal second sentencing alternative. Oslo police have endorsement of 27 February 2015 petitioned ruling for custody of the accused for a period of four weeks, with reference to the police indictment of 27 February 2015 and the Criminal Procedure Act § 171, first paragraph. 3.
The court finds that the accused is reasonably suspected of criminal offenses that may result in higher punishment than imprisonment for six months, namely for violation of Penal Code § 140 of the Penal Code § 227 second penalty option as described in the indictment.
The court in assessing probable cause particular emphasis on the following:
In an interview with NRK aired on Dagsrevyen 20th February 2015 came accused concerning Halmat Goran with the statements reproduced in the indictment. The accused was aware that key parts of the interview were broadcast on national television. The statements are thus emerged publicly. Further statements – in the context – their content solicitation and inducement to implement a homicide action against Halmat Goran. Based on prehistory and accused former criminal linked to statements regarding the same person acted accused intentionally. Although the accused did not acknowledge guilt, he confirmed the statements during the remand hearing, and he did not take away from any of their statements although he noted that they were made in an interview with NRK, which together lasted two hours. The statements are also likely to evoke serious fear in Halmat Goran. Also statements for the Kurdish television station NRT has some of the same content. The statements are concrete enough to trigger criminal liability.
The defender has argued that the accused in 2012 convicted of approximately corresponding threats facing the same person and therefore covered by the prohibition. The Court finds that although statements have roughly the same content and reality, they are now repeated several years later and is therefore to be regarded as new criminal offenses. Solicitation of murder or threat of murder is not punishable even if the corresponding threat has been put forward earlier. Each new statements that time has reasonable distance from the previous statement will be a new crime or possibly be part of a continuing offense if there is little time between statements and nothing is adjudicated. Here it is both adjudication of previous statements and several years between statements so this is new offenses.
Furthermore, the Court finds that the conditions for custody are present by the Criminal Procedure Act § 184 cf. . § 185 cf. § 171, first paragraph. 3 being imprisonment believed required to prevent the accused commits a new offense that can lead to higher punishment than imprisonment for six months, namely the penal code § 140 and / or the Criminal Code § 227 second sentencing alternative. The court has the assessment placed particular emphasis on the accused after release from atonement on 25 January 2015 has already given interviews to three TV stations where the criminal statements or parts of them have been produced in different versions. Moreover, the accused while incarcerated had a “constructive” media break, but under detention hearing, he was not prepared to confirm that he would operate with a new media break in the future. Moreover perceive court that he not only operates to TV and press media, but also that he occasionally has been active on the Internet.
The court finds that remand for four weeks will not be a disproportionate intervention.
An important point in this context is accused role as an authority in the Kurdish jihadist. His listeners ask him for advice. They listen to him and take him seriously. During the remand hearing gave the accused himself stated that many people listen to him and do what he asks them about. He therefore influence to many – not least this will apply young people who are unsure of what to do in these times of atypical actions in certain environments. The accused gave in court not manifest any desire to change their shape and working methods.
Incarceration considered after this sufficiently justified, cf. Criminal law § 170a.
Incarceration options under the Criminal Law § 188 will court’s opinion is not sufficient because of the danger of new offenses in the public space.
The petition for custody up to four weeks is therefore to follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment