The Attorney General's Dresden, in her opinion, in which she had requested that the appeal against the imposition of a fine for failure to standing up of the accused to reject the verdict, including a decision of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart put into play - but unfortunately behind This decision related thoughts's not all. The former Court of Appeal had stated in the mentioned decision: Denied the accused of the direction of the Chairman, to give evidence to stand (...) is not unreasonable then, if this arrangement is not necessary for the proper conduct of the hearing and the defendant is in conveying his refusal not to exceed limits of perception and privilege. Mere tradition in a single court to justify the fixing of an order (...) means not " (NStZ 1986, 233).
These principles are transferred but also on the situation of the seated accused in the verdict: Even for the proper conduct of the hearing is to comply with an order to stand up, any more than necessary, as on other occasions has been traditionally where. If "mere tradition" with a single court setting an order does not justify means, it can also "mere tradition" in many courts - how many there may ultimately be - not to justify the fixing of an order means, "pure tradition" is "mere tradition."
These and other ideas we have noted in our final opinion in the case to the Higher Regional Court of Dresden. There will be no earlier than on 16 Decided in June - remains to be seen whether logic and arguments, or "mere tradition" will be the directing elements of the decision ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment