Juridicalblog.net

In my country there’re still lots of local railway lines, which are crossed by the roads, however not protected by railway gates. Only traffic signs in front of the railway crossings warn drivers of such unprotected crossings. Local railway lines, which often run through the forests, aren’t always straight, there’re lots of bends there, thus the visibility for the drivers isn’t optimal, so engine drivers have to use a horn in front of the crossing. In spite of this, accidents between trains and cars happen, fortunately only seldom.
Here’s one case like this.
A man aged of 55 drove a lorry along the local road and came near an unprotected railway crossing, so he slowed down and finally stopped in front of the crossing and looked to the right and to the left, but he didn’t see any train, so he tried to cross the rail, but while still on the rail, he saw a train coming from the left hand side. He hadn’t seen it before, because of the trees growing along the rail. Because of the noise in his cab, he didn’t hear neither the horn of the engine, nor the noise of the train itself earlier. He tried to excape with a vehicle from the rail, but the lorry was too long. The crash between the train and the back part of the lorry happened, fortunately no passenger from the train was injured and the engine was only slightly damaged.
This accident was investigated by the policemen from the Traffic police station and by the specific investigational department of the railway company. During the investigation it was clear, that the engine driver hadn’t caused this accident. It had been exclusively caused by the man driving a lorry, because he hadn’t paid close attention to the train coming, so he was accused of the crime called The general danger.
During the investigation he pleaded quilty, his lorry had had a lawful insurance of the responsibility for damages caused in the traffic, so the damage on the engin was completely covered by the ensurance company. The crime itself wasn’t too dangerous. The perpetrator commited it by his negligence not intentionally, he had a good reputation and his criminal record had been empty. It was possible to conditionally stop his accusation by the prosecutor.
Such decision was accepted both by the perpetrator and by the railway company.

A young unemployed man living in a small willage in a remote region, didn’t like going to the job centre to ask for a job. Instead of this he decided to get money by commiting crimes.
He knew, that some roofs of cottages nearby are covered with galvanized plates, so he usually arrived to such cottage when it was abandoned and tore plates off from the roofs, then he cut plates into a small pieces and hid them at home. He didn’t want to sell plates immediately, because it would have been striking. During 2 weeks he managed to steal plates from 5 cottages. The value of stolen plates was quite high and cottages without roofs were unprotected for a few days, so their owners were caused another damage, because this crime was commited during the rainy season.
Police wasn’t able to detect the perpetrator, because there weren’t any witnesses and he didn’t try to sell stolen plates to a company that purchases metal from the people, but after a few weeks someone stole plates from another 2 cottages and it was clear that plates were stolen by the same person. This time the police managed to catch him leaving the second cottage with stolen plates.
The perpetrator didn’t try to deny his crime and he allowed the police to search the cellar, where he hid all the stolen plates.
He was accused both of a theft and of a crime called Damaging of another person’s thing. He was questioned the same day and during one week an expert assessed both the value of stolen plates and the one of the damaged things from the unprotected cottages.
It was his first crime, so he wasn’t arrested during investigation. The judge sentenced him to jail for 14 months. The punishment seemed too strict for him, because he only expected imprisonment, which would have been conditionally hold off for a few years. But he stole things from 7 cottages and he was responsible for damaging other things on them. His punishment was found adequate by the prosecutor who didn’t appeal and the appeal of the perpetrator was rejected during the appellate procedure.
I have to add that he didn’t execute the whole punishment. After less then 8 months of imprisonment he was conditionaly released on 2 year’s trial and during it he proved himself, so he didn’t have to to be sent to prison to execute the rest of his punishment.

Burglary belongs among the most frequent crimes. Burglars usually break a window of a house, get into it and steal money or things there. They usually don´t intend to cause lots of damage.

I still remember a case which was different and which happened in winter a few years ago. Two burglars got into a remote cottage of a family, that they knew and stole things like a tent, a pair of ski, lawnmower, a few bottles of spirit and other things. They knew that the cottage was abandoned during winter. After that they hid the stolen things in the flat of one of them to sell them later, because they needed money. The next day they met themselves again and decided to go back to the cottage and set it on fire, because they were afraid of their finger prints to be found there by the police. That’s why the same day they arrived there with a can of petrol and started the fire and the cottage was completely destroyed.

Police started a large investigation. Lots of people were questioned and our burglars belonged among the main suspicious people, but they denied both burglary and arson. In spite of this the police found out that our burglars, living in a great poverty, had suddenly things like lawnmower and a pair of ski. They were not able to explain it and they didn’t want to give things like this to the police to control, so the judge arrested them and ordered a house serching in their dwellings and the stolen things were really found there. After that one of the burglars confessed the crime and described the whole action and during confrontation between them the second one confessed too.

The investigation didn’t last long and the trial was finished during one hearing. The burglars were lucky because the penalty for their crime was between 6 month and 3 years of prison. It wasn’t possible to use more strict penalty so they were sent to prison for 2 years. The prosecutor accepted their punishment. Both burglars appealed but they were not successful. They also were ordered to pay the damage, but they wouldn’t be able to do it, because they were without money and without any property.

I have to add, that while the value of stolen things was only around 30 000,- CZK (1 000 euro), the value of the cottage with furniture and other things was more than 1 800 000 CZK (60 000 euro).

One day Andrea, a divorced woman living alone with her 10 year old daughter Jana in a small flat, invited her former husband Jan, her sister Helena and her brother-in-law Tom, who was Helena’s husband to her flat to celebrate her birthday.
Invited people arrived in the afternoon and started celebration, which mainly consisted of drinking alcohol, both beer and different kinds of spirit.
Jana spent the whole afternoon in her room and soon after dinner, prepared by her mother, she went to bed. In the morning she got up as usual and without breakfast she went to school. On her way to school she bought some cakes as she always does. During celebration she didn’t enter the sitting room.
Andrea and her guests continued drinking in the sitting room, which also served as a bedroom for Andrea. During celebration all the people got drunk. They fell asleep in a different time after midnight and were sleeping on the carpet or in an armchait in the sitting room. During the next morning they gradually left Andrea’s flat without saying good bye, so at the end Andrea, who was drunken most and woken up last, stayed there alone. At noon she decided to do some shopping to prepare meal for her daughter, but she wasn’t able to find her purse. She usually have it in a wardrobe in the sitting room. She tried to find it, so she searched the whole flat, but she didn’t find it. She was sure that she had had it before the celebration started and that during the celebration none of them had left the flat to buy another alcohol.
It was clear that some of the visitors had stolen it. She suspected Jan of stealing the purse, because he was unemployed and without money, but Tom was also able to steal it because he had been already in prison a few times for a theft. She visited both Jan and Tom and asked them to give her back her money, but they both denied a theft, so after a few days, not at once, she announced a case to the police.
A police inspector from a local police station started investigation for a theft, he interviewed both the people, who had taken part in the celebration in Andrea’s flat and the people from neighbourhood, but without a positive result. Of course, none of the guests confessed stealing the purse with money. People from neighbourhood didn’t notice anything. They only were very annoyed during the celebration, because it was very noisy even in the night. Stolen purse wasn’t found.
During investigation there wasn’t found any evedence against a certain person, so the police inspector had to put a case ad acta. The purse might have been stolen not only by Jan or Tom. Helena was also able to steal it, because she worked as a cleaning woman and she didn’t earn lots of money, she liked drinking alcohol and had a strong smoking habit, so had shortage of money. It was also possible that Andrea had lost her purse still before the celebration started without notice it, because she regularly drinks beer and is drunken very often.
The decision of the police inspector was found lawful, so the prosecutor accepted it and none person was accused of stealing Andrea’s purse.

Along the Defence Act, men have to serve in military forces for 12 months, unless they aren’t do that because of their health or other reasons mentioned in this Act. Such military duty starts from the age of 18 and finishes at the age of 60 and is exclusively a male matter. Women don’t have any military duties and they can serve in military forces only as a volunteers.
During recruit proceedings every man is taken into register in a regional military office and is considered whether is able for a military service or not and if so, he is assigned to a suitable sort of military active service like infantry, air force, artillery etc., so everyone has to obey the summons of such office and to present oneself to the recruit proceeding.
Along the Penal Code a man, who don’t come to recruit proceedings in order not to fulfil his recruit duty, or to put off its fulfilling, commits a crime called Not fulfillment of recruit duty and is threatened at least 1 year of prison.
There’re people, who refuse to come to recruit proceedings. In such case regional military office as a rule annouces it to police, which starts investigation and such person is punished during a criminal proceeding, if found guilty.
Crimes like this are rare, in spite of this I have supervised one recently. A young healty man, who wasn’t willing to serve a military service. received a citation to recruit proceeding, but he didn’t come to military office, so he was cited again but he repeatedly refused to come there, so he apseted his recruit proceeding.
On the base of military office’s announcement a policeman from a local police station questioned a suspicious man, who pleaded quilty, so a policeman handed the case to regional police investigator. He accused him of the Not fulfillment of recruit duty and questioned him as accused person. This man, as an accused, made use of his right and refused to submit to interrogation, he only said, that his accusation was true. The documents from the military office enabled to the prosecutor to send him to the court. There wasn’t a trial, but the judge issued the Criminal writ and imposed him a pecuniary punishment. Such punishment was accepted both the perpetrator and the prosecutor.