Athens Bar Association after the Lignadis decision: “No” to criminal populism

His opposition to criticism of the court decision in the case of the former artistic director of the National Theater Dimitris Lignadis, as well as for other cases that have strongly concerned public opinion, states the Board of Directors of the Athens Bar Association (DSA).

In his resolution he notes, among other things, that “the public feeling about justice, as it is subjectively perceived, cannot prejudge the outcome of the judicial crisis” nor is it “justified to incite phenomena of criminal populism as, unfortunately, we have found, time and time again , from the relevant governmental legislative initiatives”. Furthermore, according to the DSA “any attempt to influence the judicial decision in ongoing cases is reprehensible, especially when it comes from persons with an institutional role”.

In detail, the entire resolution issued by the DSA is as follows:

“Criminal populism” and the administration of justice – Common sense of justice – Criticism of judicial decisions – Presumption of innocence – 497 par. 8 CPC – Resolution D.S.A.

The Board of Directors of the DSA, on the occasion of the public positions and reactions, which are manifested after the recent criminal cases that preoccupied and preoccupy the Greek society, issued the following announcement:

1. The Board of Directors of the DSA considers the increased interest of public opinion in the development of cases involving heinous crimes, especially when they are committed against minors, as well as the expression of opinion and criticism by citizens to be reasonable and expected.
2. The crown of European legal culture, in the field of criminal law, is the presumption of innocence of the accused. The accused is presumed innocent until the issuance of an irrevocable conviction and this basic principle must not be bent by anyone and for any reason.
3. In a democratic and privileged State, Justice is awarded by the Courts, in accordance with the established substantive and procedural rules, which must be applied to everyone, without any discrimination. Any attempt to influence the judicial decision in ongoing cases is reprehensible, especially when it comes from persons with an institutional role.
4. The public feeling about justice, as it is subjectively perceived, cannot prejudge the outcome of the judicial decision, beyond the underlying legality, nor is it justified to incite phenomena of criminal populism, as, unfortunately, we have established, repeatedly, from the relevant government legislative initiatives.
5. Judicial decisions are obviously open to criticism, but this cannot result in a general discrediting of the judicial function.
6. The provision of article 497 par. 8 of the CPC, as it is valid until today after its last amendment by Law 3904/2010, is moving in the right direction and its application rests exclusively with the sovereign judgment of the court. It is noted that the courts for minor criminal offenses were deprived of this possibility after the recent amendment of par. 6 of article 187 of the Criminal Code.
7. A guarantee of the safety of the judicial decision is the control of the case by several degrees of jurisdiction”.

RES-EMP

View the news feed and get the latest news.