Thursday , May 13 2021

He is M. Richard's letter of protest has been dropped from the court

Judgment Day ceased trial with a court of law sued by court on trial for suspected allegations of a death penalty on Dozza Gurgi Street in Budapest on Saturday.

On October 16, the Tribunal informed MTI that the Buddha Central District Court sentenced a suspect to 7.5 million dollars at the intersection of Dozza Gorgorsk Street. This has changed.

In October, Michael Richard suspects Budapest threats to be taken in Budapest in Andrassy Road in 2015. On May 15, 2017, on the way to Dossa Gorkogri, he crossed the other car, significantly exceeding the speed of the road. Two people died in the blaze and many were seriously injured. They also said: "Until May 15, 2017, MR. suspected of drug abuse, but it did not affect his ability to move. "

Richards Richards (s) throws the main street of the Buda Central District Court.Photo: Balázs Mohai / MTI / MTVA

On Saturday, the tribunal wrote that a court of first instance had the right to know that the suspect had been a general compulsory condition. He also claimed that he had initiated a new, deliberate criminal offense on his deprivation of liberty after his interrogation. It is also possible to assume that the suspect will commit another criminal offense, subject to several criminal penalties and his life, if he remains open, punished by deprivation of liberty.

Second-instance court can not be used to eliminate the possibility of resale by applying the first-time rules of procedure. At the site identified in the order of the first stage, the suspect can move freely and based on his decision, which is currently questionable on the basis of the court proceedings. The Court notes that the first instance court ruled that the defendant's voluntary and subsequent legal proceedings had not been published in the last few months on any violation of the rules.

According to the Tribunal, M. Richard has previously violated domestic rules of procedure – a criminal offense against him – further doubts about the law of volunteering.

The second instance court also considered that the court of first instance did not examine the amount of property of the suspect and did not prove it, although the court of first instance considered establishing a proportionate amount for the suspect's individual and property. Thus, it was not a basis for determining which of the safeguards could be subject to a mild gesture of conduct.

The Court changed the first-instance court to 7.5 million imprisonment and simplified criminal investigations and rejected the defense's recommendation to terminate the criminal investigation and ceased to provide warranties and hearings. The order is final, informs the announcement. (CPC)


Source link