Czech prosecutor explains why he did not appeal the acquittal verdict in the case of the death of a Romani man in Brno: The court's conclusion is acceptable, given the evidence
According to prosecutor Petr Bejšovec from the Brno Regional Prosecutor's Office, the trial in the case of the death of a young Romani man in Brno heard evidence that made it possible to properly decide on the matter, assessing the complex legal question of necessary self-defense, and the court's legal assessment is in accordance with the principle of in dubio pro reo (where there are doubts, the accused shall be given the benefit of those doubts) as well as within the bounds of current case law. Bejšovec had been asked by news server Romea.cz to explain why he did not appeal the acquittal of Roman Rohozin, who was charged with murder, which carries a sentence of up to 18 years in prison.
Brno’s Regional Court acquitted Rohozin, who is originally from Ukraine, on 22 March. According to the judge, his actions were not criminal, but were committed as necessary self-defense.
Bejšovec said that in this matter the indictment was filed in a state of doubt, not as to whether the actions had happened and had been committed by the defendant, but as to the legal qualification of the actions. “Enough evidence was gathered as background for an evidentiary proceedings, and the crux of such a proceedings, according to the principles of directness and orality, is that it be held before a court,” he told news server Romea.cz.
“Although the conclusion of the court does not correspond with the final proposal of the prosecution, it can be accepted given the evidence presented. The conclusion does not contravene the evidence that was gathered, rather, the court just assessed the degree of proportionality of the necessity of the defense differently, justifying its decision relatively convincingly and in accordance with current case law,” reads the statement that news server Romea.cz is publishing here in full translation.
Statement by supervisory prosecutor Petr Bejšovec for news server Romea.cz
The Brno Regional Prosecutor, after studying the verdict of the Brno Regional Court č. j. 48 T 7/2023 of 22 March 2024 which acquitted defendant Roman Rohozin under Section 226 letter b) of the Criminal Code because its legal opinion is that circumstances were found which ruled out the criminal liability of the defendant under Section 29 of the Criminal Code, i.e., that the defendant acted in necessary self-defense, has decided after careful consideration to accept this verdict and not appeal.
In this matter the indictment was filed in a state of doubt, not as to whether the actions had happened and had been committed by the defendant, but as to the legal qualification of the actions. Enough evidence was gathered as background for an evidentiary proceedings, and the crux of such a proceedings, according to the principles of directness and orality, is that it be held before a court.
After carefully hearing the evidence, the trial court took into account the defendant’s subjective perception of the aggression that had been escalated by the injured parties, as well as the fact that the attack by the injured parties did not end until the defendant actively defended himself. The court also found that the defendant’s actions met the definition of necessary defense when, through his behavior, he fended off a sustained attack, an interest protected by the Criminal Code, and his selected method of defense was not absolutely apparently disproportionate in relation to the attack.
Although the conclusion of the court does not correspond with the final proposal of the prosecution, it can be accepted, given the evidence that was presented. The conclusion does not contravene the evidence that was gathered, rather, the court just assessed the degree of proportionality of the necessity of the defense differently, justifying its decision relatively convincingly and in accordance with current case law, which in recent rulings has shifted and is preferring more and more the protection of persons defending themselves, transferring liability for any injuries suffered to those attacking such persons, while simultaneously requiring the very careful evaluation and consideration of the defendant’s judgment, his psychological state caused by the attack and his options for judging the situation. The court focused precisely on the defendant’s judgment and mental state at the time of the attack, and from this point of view, the decision of the court is in accordance with the conclusions of experts from the fields of healthcare, psychiatry and clinical psychology who gave their expert opinions and were heard in detail during the trial.
In view of the above, the filing of an appeal was not justified, as the trial court heard evidence that allowed for a proper decision in the matter and evaluated the complex legal issue of necessary self-defense, which must be assessed individually in each specific case; the evidence did not contradict the established facts and the legal assessment is consistent with the principle of in dubio pro reo and is within the limits of current jurisprudence, and has been found to be persuasive.
