Last year at the beginning of November, Dominik Feri was sentenced to three years without condition. According to the court, he committed all three acts that were discussed and therefore committed two rapes and one attempted rape. He was also supposed to pay the victims 510,000 crowns for their psychological damage and invoices for a psychotherapist to one of them. On Monday, the Municipal Court of Appeal heard the appeal of both the defense and the prosecution. The defense demanded an acquittal, Dominik Feri denies the guilt, the defense in turn demands higher compensation for the victims. The lawyer for the injured parties, Adéla Hořejší, made a speech in which she drew attention to the fact that the awarded amount of compensation is very low considering Dominik Feri’s income. “Mr. defendant’s property conditions are above standard, he can afford not to work for three years,” explained the lawyer, why she is demanding higher compensation.
The defendant Dominik Feri also spoke at the court, who had a long speech in which he questioned the conclusions of the first instance court, which he does not consider to be objective. In his speech, he also mentioned his laughter, which, according to him, the court should not have considered. “If it is a sentencing sentence, then I consider it incorrect and very wrongful to me that the court took into account my alleged ‘mockery in the next room.’ It wasn’t mentioned in the protocol, not even the assistant judge who was in the next room pointed it out to me,” said Feri regarding the situation, where he laughed at the victim’s statement so that it might be heard even in the courtroom.
State representative Aleš Cimbala emphasized in his speech that Dominik Feri showed no signs that the proceedings had any educational effects on him. “We don’t see elements of some self-reflection. It is therefore a question whether a milder punishment would have educational effects on him. As part of the review process, we should review whether the punishment is reasonable. In my view, the sentence is not unduly harsh. So, on behalf of the public prosecutor’s office, I agree with this judgment. It is a comprehensive, logical decision,” said Cimbala.
