Officers acquitted on charges of life threatening injuries
01 November 2003
On 21 November 2003, a Berlin court acquitted two police officers of charges of police violence, reversing an earlier decision which found one officer guilty of "physical assault in office", sentencing them to seven months probation. The victim of the assault - which left him with permanent injuries - is considering an appeal. Human rights groups that monitored the trial were shocked at the acquittal in a case that was backed by hard medical evidence and witness statements, They have argued that it sets a bad example for other victims of official misconduct, discouraging them from seeking legal recourse.
The background to this case was a minor incident. Levent Ö. was giving a party at his house when a neighbour, irritated by the music, called the police. By the time four officers arrived, the music had subsided but they still entered Levent Ö.'s flat, without asking his permission. They ignored Levent's request to see their search warrant. During their search they saw two marijuana plants, which they cut down, although Levent had explained to them that they were THC-free (which, it later turned out, they were). Levent demanded the identification number of the head of the operation. In response they asked him to come down to their car so they could issue a confiscation report. Witnesses said that the police pushed Levent hard to the ground and started kicking and beating him.
In its 2003 annual report, Amnesty International describes the incident as follows:
The man alleged that after he was handcuffed, one police officer grabbed hold of his neck and violently threw him to the ground, causing him to hit his face on the ground after which two police officers kicked him as he lay on the ground. The man suffered a deep gash to his nose and lower forehead, which required an operation, and multiple bruising to his arms and neck.
Levent Ö. was admitted to hospital with an open nasal bone fracture which was classified as life threatening by doctors who ordered an emergency operation. In addition to the open wound between his eyes, the hospital documented strangulation marks around his neck and bruising over his entire body. As a result of his injuries, Levent Ö. was left with restricted movement in one arm, leaving him unable to work as a cameraman. He has lost his sense of smell because the nerves at the bridge of his nose failed to heal properly. The brutality evoked memories of Levent Ö’s past as a torture victim - he had been tortured and politically persecuted in Turkey. He found himself traumatised by the incident.
Levent initiated legal proceedings against the police and in December 2002, the Berlin Tiergarten District Court found Bernd O., the responsible head of operations, guilty. He was given a seven-month suspended prison sentence. Immediately after the incident, the police, turned the allegations around and accused Levent Ö. of obstructing an officer in the performance of his duties, slander and bodily injury but it lost its case in the same court in June 2001.
Both parties appealed against the decisions, Bernd O. against his sentence and Levent Ö. because only one of the officers involved was called to account. For unknown reasons and without precedent, the 72nd division for criminal matters of the regional court in Berlin decided to merge the two trials, with the result that the victim was summoned simultaneously, as a joint plaintiff against two police officers, and as an accused on grounds of obstruction and slander. Levent Ö. not only found it traumatic to be accused whilst trying to seek justice, but also found himself in the legally impossible situation of having to give evidence on details of the incident whilst having to worry about his statements possibly being used against him.
One of the legal issues that arises from calling the same person as an accused and as a witness are that statements by the accused are given less importance than that of a witness in that witnesse