(Dagbladet): Borgarting court of appeal has rejected islamisten Arfan Bhattis appeal over the judgment he in the Oslo district court had to have exercised violence against his wife.
In the district court was Bhatti sentenced to two weeks imprisonment. This ruling from January of last year is now standing.
“the Verdict is unfortunate because it can prevent people from seeking medical attention for fear that information when the police, without that they want it.” John Christian Fire, defender
39-year-old set nine days in custody when he was first arrested in the case, and avoid to zone.
the Background for the Bhattis appeal is procedural. He believes that the police illegally obtained hovedbeviset in the case, a lydlogg from the CONSERVATORY, which shows that the wife called them three times on the night of 31. July 2015, before the police arrived at the couple’s residence and brought her to the emergency room.
He also believes that he has had limited opportunities to meet påtalemaktens claims, and that he did not get a fair trial.
the Court of appeal concludes that the recordings should be admissible, because the Bhattis wife the same night that she called, wrote under a general fritakserklæring she was referred by the police. The court finds that the statement does it involved health professional for an exemption from the obligation of confidentiality.
Bhatti and defender John Christian Fire required lydloggen rejected as evidence, because fritakserklæringen not cover the health staff of the CONSERVATORY.
the Ruling is unfortunate because it can prevent people from seeking medical attention for fear that information when the police, without that they want it. The case seriously gave nine days in jail, and it can be raised spøsmål whether this is the case in which the prosecution should challenge the helsenvesenets taushetspilkt, type Fire, in an SMS to Dagbladet.
Fire thinks on his page that fritakserklæringen not include lydloggen. This is not the right agree.
his Wife availed themselves of their right not to testify against her husband in court, in hht. straffeprosesslovens section 122, who says that the close family of a indicted can opt-out of to explain herself to him.
In politiavhør she said that she stumbled to his feet during a fight, and that it was the way she had incurred the injuries she received treatment at the emergency room.
COUNTERPARTIES: John Christian Fire defense Bhatti, while attorney general Anne Christine Stoltz Wennersten represents påtalemakten. Photo: Berit Roald / NTB Scanpix Show more
the district Court however found it proven beyond any doubt that the damage was due to violence from her husband. Now the court of appeal confirmed this.
the Court of appeal points out that the footage nor is the påtalemaktens the only evidence; the explanation from the first police officer in the couple’s apartment accorded great weight, the same being his wife and the neighbours ‘ politiforklaring.
the Court also believes that Bhatti has had ample opportunity to refute the police evidence, since the CONSERVATORY-log all the time has figured in the case. He also had the opportunity to this, when three police officers testified in court.
“the Court of appeal has since concluded that it was not a procedural that lydloggen from the amk was allowed led as evidence during the district court’s treatment of the case. The appeal is consequently rejected,” writes lagdommer Kjersti Buun Nygaard in conclusion.