examination at the State Scientific Centre for Forensic Psychiatric Examinations. On 26 December 2003 the examination was completed and the applicant was transferred to remand centre No. IZ-77/2 in Moscow. On 15 January 2004 he left IZ-77/2 and on the following day he returned to the remand centre in Tula.
12. In the meantime, on 30 December 2003 the Uzlovaya Town Court heard an application by the prosecutor for a further extension of the applicant's detention. On the previous day legal-aid counsel Mr S., who had been appointed to represent the applicant, had informed the Town Court that he would not be able to attend because of his involvement in another trial. Mr L. was appointed instead to represent the applicant.
13. Counsel for the applicant pleaded for his release, maintaining that there were no lawful grounds for granting a further extension. The prosecutor submitted that there were no reasons to vary the preventive measure.
14. The Town Court granted the application for an extension, finding as follows:
"...Taking into account the gravity of the charge concerning a premeditated particularly serious crime against property, information about the defendant's character, arguments by the State prosecutor to the effect that Mr Shulenkov may commit a more serious crime, flee from the investigation and justice and thereby interfere with the establishment of the truth, as well as the impossibility of finalising the pre-trial investigation within the remaining time because many investigative steps must be carried out in several areas of the region, the court finds that there are no grounds for revoking or varying the preventive measure in the form of remand in custody and that there exist justified grounds for extending the defendant's detention..."
15. On 30 January 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal against the extension order. He submitted that by 26 December 2003 the forensic examination had already been completed and that his presence at the hearing on 30 December could easily have been secured. He pointed out that the prosecutor's arguments concerning the risk of his fleeing or reoffending had not been corroborated with any facts. Furthermore, the court had not given consideration to the fact that he had to provide for his ailing parents and under-age daughter. On 19 March 2004 the Tula Regional Court dismissed the appeal. It found that the Town Court had correctly cited the gravity of the charges against the applicant as the ground for extending his detention. It also held that the examination of the applicant's detention in his absence had been compatible with Article 109 § 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because at that time the applicant had been held in a remand centre in Moscow "in connection with a forensic psychiatric examination" and because he had been represented by counsel, Mr L.
16. On 13 February 2004 the Uzlovaya Town Court granted a further extension of the applicant's detention until 10 April 2004. The applicant was represented at the hearing by counsel Mr L.
17. On 9 April 2004 the case against the applicant and two of his co-defendants was sent to the Uzlovaya Town Court for trial.
18. On 22 April 2004 the applicant complained to the governor of the remand centre and the Tula regional assistant prosecutor that, following the expiry of the last detention order on 10 April 2004, there was no legal basis for his continued detention. He did not receive a reply.
19. On 23 April 2004 the Uzlovaya Town Court gave a decision fixing the date of the preliminary hearing. The decision did not mention the question of the applicant's detention.
20. At the preliminary hearing on 13 May 2004 the Town Court determined that the bill of indictment was procedurally defective in that it contained incorrect information about the applicant's personal details. The court decided to ret
> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
