Attorney for Czech neo-Nazi draws inspiration from Public Affairs party's defense tactics

Another objection of bias has been filed in the case of eight people on trial at the Prague 1 District Court for promoting neo-Nazism and convening neo-Nazi events. Just a few days after the court refused an objection of bias against expert witness Ivo Svoboda, another objection has been filed against presiding judge Dana Šindelářová by the same attorney, Robert Cholenský, who is representing defendant Patrik Vondrák. His argument is based on a case in which a presiding judge was recently recused from hearing a case of alleged corruption inside the Public Affairs party (Věcí veřejných – VV).

Vondrák, the former chair of the Prague cell of the dissolved Workers’ Party (Dělnická strana – DS), first filed an objection through his attorney against Svoboda alleging he had overcharged for his affidavits and citing the fact that Svoboda had referred to right-wing extremists as “deprived, stupid brutes” in an interview for news server Týden.cz. On Monday, the Prague 1 District Court rejected that objection and ruled that Svoboda is not biased. Vondrák is now objecting to Judge Šindelářová’s justification of that ruling.

According to the text of the current objection, which was published online by activist Tomáš Pecina, Šindelářová’s argument regarding Svoboda’s alleged economic dependency on affidavits labeled that concern as completely irrelevant, unjustified, ungrounded, and “bordering on the extreme”. Attorney Cholenský has confirmed the authenticity of the text that is currently online to the Czech Press Agency. His new objection reads: “If a presiding judge labels such an objection as ‘bordering on the extreme’, and if that judge articulates that it is the intention of the court not to concern itself with the objection and take it into consideration instead of dispassionately justifying why the objection is not grounded, the suspicion arises that she may be biased toward the defendant.”

With respect to Svoboda’s quote in Týden.cz, the presiding judge, according to the online document, stated that it had not been determined that his comment concerned Vondrák. In addition, she pointed out that Vondrák should “be more selective with respect to the appropriateness and the justifications of the filings he makes.” Vondrák had stated in his objection that it is not for judges in a democratic state under the rule of law to recommend to the defense how it should proceed.

As part of its argument that Šindelářová might be biased, the document also touches on, among other matters, current events surrounding a case of alleged corruption inside the VV party. On Wednesday the District Court for Prague 5 recused the presiding judge in that case after he was quoted on it in Lidové noviny, saying that the interview “objectively gave cause to establish grounds for doubt” as to the judge’s impartiality.

“This can certainly be compared to other criminal cases where judges have been recused, such as the case where during a consultation the presiding judge gave an instruction in which he said the guilty party and the witnesses proposed by that party were ‘one and the same scum’ (the case of Jiří Kajínek), or where a presiding judge was recused – although this hasn’t yet taken effect – because she expressed her distaste for the case in a newspaper interview (the case of Bárta and Škárka),” Vondrák’s objection reads.

This is not the first time that an objection of bias has been filed against a judge in this trial of people charged with supporting and promoting a movement aimed at suppressing human rights and freedoms. The main hearing in this case began in October 2010. Vondrák objected to the possible bias of the first presiding judge, Věra Bártová. She recused herself from the case at the end of December 2010. The case was then sent to the then-head of the District Court, Libor Vávra, who left that job to become Vice-Chair of the Municipal Court in Prague. The latest presiding judge is Šindelářová. The main hearing is scheduled for Monday. Given the change of judges, the trial will start from the beginning.

The prosecution describes four crimes in this case, to which all of the defendants have pled “not guilty”. They include the alleged posting of propaganda materials for the neo-Nazi National Resistance (Národní odpor – NO) or the organizing and convening of a gathering which the prosecution said was for the purpose of honoring the memories of fallen soldiers of the Nazi Wehrmacht and SS members.