The accused of sexual violence against a policewoman at the North Station of the capital was released due to procedural deficiencies, i.e. he was not informed of the reasons for choosing a preventive measure, nor of the rights he had as a detainee, according to the Prosecutor’s Office of District Court 1. Similarly, the prosecutor believed that “the action should a much lower degree of public danger.”

We remind you that a policewoman was the victim of a sexual aggressor at the North Railway Station of the capital, and the Europol Union was outraged that the aggressor was being investigated at large for sexual violence and threats, even though it is a crime. insults were met.

The prosecutor’s office presented the chronology of the criminal case against the man who sexually assaulted a policewoman in Gara de Nord

In a press release sent on Tuesday, the Prosecutor’s Office of the District Court of Bucharest 1 presents the chronology of the case:

• On April 14, a woman, a police officer, reported to the police that on the same day, around 10:20, a man touched her in the groin area, and later threatened to physically assault her.
• In a decree dated April 14, the Bucharest Regional Transport Police Department ordered the opening of a criminal investigation into the fact of sexual violence and threats.
• In addition, Bucharest’s transport police ordered further prosecution of the man for crimes of sexual violence and threats, a move confirmed by the prosecutor.
• By another resolution dated April 14 at 9:15 p.m., the Northern Police Department detained the suspect for 24 hours until 9:15 p.m. on April 15. The prosecutor refused to choose a preventive measure in the form of detention due to procedural violations.
• By the resolution of the prosecutor’s office dated April 15, criminal proceedings were opened against the man on the facts of rape and threats of a sexual nature.

How the prosecutor’s office explains the release of the aggressor: “The action has a much lower degree of public danger”

The prosecutor’s office notes in the resolution that on April 14, around 10:20 a.m., in the premises of the Northern Railway Station in Bucharest, in front of the pharmacy in the central part, a man deliberately touched a policewoman with his hand, in the groin area through his pants, and later threatened her with physical violence.

• “In view of the factual situation, the specific method of the offense and the defendant’s personal circumstances set forth in the indictment, the prosecutor came to the conclusion that there is no need to choose a preventive measure in the form of deprivation or restriction of liberty.
• Thus, based on the results of the supervisory activity in the criminal proceedings, the prosecutor issued a resolution on the cancellation of the measure chosen for the suspect in the form of detention, taking into account the procedural shortcomings, namely, the fact that the suspect was not informed of the reasons for choosing the preventive measure. the measure, nor the rights he had as a detained person.
• Analyzing the expediency of choosing a preventive measure in the form of custody in the case, the prosecutor points out that he established that although the facts of which the defendant is accused contain a high degree of abstract social danger, which is manifested in high punishments, in concrete terms the fact has a much lower degree of public danger, if we talk about the method of physical contact between the defendant and the injured person.
• It is noted that the man behaved properly procedurally, admitting the accusation in full, at the same time expressing a position of regret, attributing the facts to excessive alcohol consumption, and the prosecutor also took into account his personal circumstances, namely: he has no criminal record and is not part of an environment prone to committing crimes.
• Referring to the real and personal circumstances of the defendant, the prosecutor came to the conclusion that deprivation of the defendant’s freedom at this procedural stage is not necessary to eliminate the state of danger to public order.”

The prosecutor’s office also claims that the prosecutor believed that the man was heard both as a suspect and as an accused, and other means of proof for his presence were no longer needed, as well as a measure of judicial control. no need either.

The Europol trade union said it was outraged that the aggressor at large was being investigated for sexual violence and threats, although the offense of insult had been met, and announced it would intervene through lawyers to change the legal classification of the act.

• “It is incredible how easily prosecutors treat such facts that can stimulate the behavior of persons with deviant behavior. In the “judicial” state of 2023, prosecutors believe that the threat to the police officer in the presented case is not directly related to his performance of duties,” charged Europol, which also published images of aggression.