But it turned out differently

Burning plea for police officer’s guilty verdict

The accused police officer was visibly nervous in front of the panel of lay assessors

(Bild: Markus Schütz, Krone KREATIV)

"I can't explain it logically" - the 32-year-old police officer who was on trial for abuse of authority in Linz, "fumbled" in his interrogation as to why he had played down an act against a colleague. And the public prosecutor made a rarely passionate plea, but was defeated by the panel of lay judges.

"We in the public prosecutor's office are desk officers. The police officers are our eyes, ears and noses. If they don't do their job properly, we come to the wrong decisions and the court can't do its job. And that undermines law enforcement and shakes confidence in it. Especially in times like these, that is unacceptable." In an impassioned closing statement, the public prosecutor spoke out against the accused police officer receiving a diversion - i.e. not a guilty verdict - as his lawyer had asked the judge to do.

"Everything went wrong"
The officer admitted his guilt from the outset. He had taken over a file on a fire in Puchenau from a colleague, but had not completed it properly. "Everything that could go wrong did go wrong," said the father of two. "That's an understatement," replied the judge. The police officer had knowingly written in the final report that a fire in a house in Puchenau had started from a bedside lamp. Even though there were two places of fire, even though the lamp was undamaged and even though the colleague had already spoken of an intentional crime in an official note. "You looked at this official note seven times," said the judge, including on the day he sent off the final report.

Proceedings discontinued at first
"I can't explain it to myself logically," the police officer, who has been on the force for seven years, fumbled. He had not forwarded his colleague's official note or any further questioning, which is why the case was initially closed. Only when the victim got in touch and said that something was wrong was the case investigated further.

Personal problems as an explanation
The explanation given by the accused was that he "wanted to get the file off the table" because he was away on training and things were difficult at home with his wife due to a problem pregnancy and he "didn't have his head in the game". He denied that his behavior could be related to the fact that he had to investigate a colleague - because the suspected arsonist is a police officer: "I've never worked with him, I only know his name from files". There had already been problems at his colleague's house on several occasions, and he had to be banned from entering the premises and having weapons.

When the defendant returned to work after his papa month, the file was back on his desk and he had to investigate his colleague.

Pay one month's wages
Despite the public prosecutor's plea, the panel of lay judges decided to give the accused a "second chance" and decided on a diversion. Within 14 days, the police officer must pay a monthly salary of 2,700 euros, after which the proceedings will be discontinued. The public prosecutor spoke out against the decision; it is unclear whether the prosecution will appeal against the decision. The decision is therefore not yet legally binding.

Trigger will stand trial tomorrow
This concludes the proceedings against the first police officer charged for the time being. Tomorrow, Wednesday, the officer whose alleged act started it all will have to stand trial. He is alleged to have deliberately caused the fire.