32.8 C
Saturday, August 13, 2022

Daniel Martyniuk, son of a disco polo musician, doomed. There is a final judgment

Must read

- Advertisement -

The District Court in Białystok upheld the judgment of the first instance court in the case of Daniel Martyniuk, son of a famous disco polo performer. According to the decision, the accused was sentenced to 10 months in prison, suspended for three years, he must also pay a fine of 10,000 zlotys, and he is also banned from driving for six years. The judgment is final.

The police became interested in Daniel Martyniuk (he agrees to provide the data) in April last year, when it turned out that he was breaking the rules of quarantine related to the coronavirus. According to the information provided by the police at that time, he was on the list of people subject to quarantine, the observance of which was controlled by the officers in the places of residence (or stay) of these people. When they checked the situation of the 32-year-old, it turned out that he was outside the house, and when the policemen showed up, he was just running up the stairs.


Police: drove to a gas station, was banned from driving

According to the police at the time, the man claimed that “he was visiting his parents and did not want to comply with the quarantine rules”. He was arrested after the police officer on duty received information that at night the same man had driven to one of the petrol stations in Białystok, and – on the basis of a final judgment – he was banned from driving. The station employee recognized him “because the newspapers wrote about him.”

- Advertisement -

The prosecutor’s office then issued a detention order, and the collected evidence allowed Martyniuk to accuse Martyniuk of breaking the court ban on driving vehicles several times. After these charges were brought, the 32-year-old was even temporarily arrested, because the court agreed with the prosecution’s assessment that there may be a fear of fraud.

Defense: gross disproportionate penalty

In a trial before a district court, the defense wanted a penalty of restriction of liberty by imposing an obligation to perform community service. However, the court ordered a more severe sentence: suspended 10 months in prison, a fine of 10,000 zlotys and a six-year ban on driving any motor vehicles.

The defense lawyer appealed against the sentence, he wanted a lighter penalty, especially a shorter driving ban. The lawyer referred, inter alia, to on the defendant’s current employment and family situation.

In his appeal, the defense lawyer pointed to – in his opinion – a gross disproportionate penalty; argued that the trial court focused only on aggravating circumstances.

The judge of the District Court in Białystok, Marzanna Chojnowska, explained what “gross disproportionate” meant, recalled what the judicial directives on the sentencing were, and drew attention to such aspects as social impact or educational goals. And she emphasized: – The legal qualification of the acts and the so-called the coincidence of the offenses was correct, the sentence is just and fair.


The sentence is upheld

The District Court in Białystok upheld the judgment of the court of first instance. For Martyniuk, this means a sentence of 10 months in prison, suspended for three years, a fine of 10,000 zlotys and a six-year ban on driving.

The judge said that she did not share the defense attorney’s position that, in the opinion of the first instance court, aggravating circumstances prevailed and that mitigating circumstances had not been taken into account. She drew the attention of, among others on the previous criminal record of the accused; she reminded that if the district court had not taken into account the mitigating circumstances (e.g. admitting guilt), the sentence would have been passed without suspension. – The appellate court does not see here any gross disproportionate punishment or an unfair punishment – judge Chojnowska justified.

Judgment: fair retribution for evil done

– Punishment is a fair retribution for evil done. Proportional to the act and guilt of the perpetrator – said the judge. The court referred to the explanations of the defendant in the first instance, who then said that he had violated the ban because he was not used to traveling by train, but used to “comfortable living”, he liked driving a car and could not accept the loss of his driving license. Referring to this, the judge admitted that the six-year driving ban “will create difficulties” in the life of the convict. – And perhaps you will have to get used to this unpopular train ride (…). But the imposed ban is only an obstacle in your future life. It does not prevent you from further professional development (it is a seaman’s job – ed.), Does not hinder contacts with your daughter, and only and only will require you to make more efforts on your part and give up the comfort of traveling in a car driven by you – said the judge.

– The punishment must be severe enough, felt by you, for you to conduct a thought process and say that the ailment and inevitability of this punishment must cause you to change your behavior (…) No, this sentence is not for you harmful – said Chojnowska in the oral justification of the judgment.

The decision is final.


Source link

More articles

- Advertisement -

Latest article