2023-08-01 13:00:00
The case is hardly believable. A young man spent nine days for nothing behind bars, at the beginning of July, in Brussels. By decision of the council chamber, the 22-year-old Anderlechtois was to be released on Wednesday July 5 from Haren prison. It has not happened. Imad remained detained. He did not actually leave prison until Friday the 14th.
Nine days of inexplicable detention. This is what our investigation reveals, which raises the question: when the public prosecutor’s office, when it is dissatisfied with a release decision, does it use tricks to prolong the stay in prison of a presumed innocent?
The streets of Cureghem
The case concerns this drug trafficking dismantled in the spring in the Cureghem district of Anderlecht.
A long-term investigation, fueled by weeks of information gathering, telephone tapping and field observations. With results commensurate with police work: several seizures of narcotics – cannabis resin, marijuana and cocaine – and cash, more than 100,000 euros.
It resulted in the dismantling of an active band in this Cureghem district reputed to be sensitive, especially rue Jorez, rue de la Clinique, Clemenceau district, square Albert 1er, rue Carpentier, chaussée de Mons, etc.
decision
Imad lives there, rue de la Clinique. According to investigators, he played a pivotal role in the organization, as an intermediary between suppliers and resellers. He had the eye on the street sales, gave the directives and collected the money. On May 2, the investigating judge did not hesitate to place him under arrest warrant.
It is also necessary to underline the speed with which this judge closed the file at the end of June. It’s very fast.
Depending on this, the Brussels council chamber had to decide on the rules of procedure. Concretely: decide whether or not to refer the accused to the criminal court and pending the trial which will not take place before September or October, whether or not to keep them in preventive detention.
On July 5, the council chamber decided to extend Imad’s preventive detention under the modality of electronic surveillance. Technically, Imad remained under arrest warrant but was allowed out of jail and back home where he would wear an electronic bracelet until the day of the trial.
It is here that it should be pointed out that under the Preventive Detention Act 1990, this decision, when taken as in the present case at the time of the settlement of the proceedings, is not likely to be affected. appeal from the prosecution of the king’s prosecutor. The prosecution cannot appeal, it is the law.
However, the same day, the prosecution overruled and appealed.
Nine days to marinate
The learner, Me Olivier Martins, counsel for Imad, reacted immediately by denouncing to the public prosecutor’s office this “incomprehensible” decision by the public prosecutor’s office to appeal when the law does not authorize him to do so, the effect being obviously to prolong this making the presence in prison of a presumed innocent.
The public prosecutor’s office fully shared the lawyer’s misunderstanding.
Proof of this is that the indictment chamber, which rules on appeal, has in principle a maximum of 15 days to examine the case.
In this case, Me Martins was asking the public prosecutor’s office to reduce the time limit, and that is what happened. Instead of 15 days, Imad appeared on appeal following 9 days, on July 14. That’s nine days too many, but so be it.
On Friday 14, the indictment chamber, unsurprisingly, declared the prosecution’s appeal inadmissible, so that the decision taken on July 5 to authorize Imad’s release from prison by wearing the electronic bracelet, might finally be executed. Imad had languished nine days for nothing in prison.
“Unfair”
Nine days for nothing, but why? One of two things. Either the prosecution, ignoring article 26 of the law of 1990, would have been mistaken. We agree that it is highly unlikely.
Either the prosecution, bad player, angry, maneuvered, with cunning, and without regard to a court decision, so as to prolong the presence in prison of a presumed innocent.
The lawyer Martins, contacted, does not say otherwise. Either way, he said, the incident raises a serious question. “I find it hard to believe that the appeal lodged on July 5 is the result of an error on the part of the king’s prosecutor”, reacted the criminal lawyer. “One is tempted to believe that the sole aim sought was to prolong to the maximum, in an unfair way, preventive detention in a prison environment”. A small scandal, believes the lawyer, who knows what he is talking regarding and calls ‘scandal’ the fact of playing with people’s freedom.
1690900041
#scandalous #appeal #prosecution #stayed #days #Haren #prison
