Extending the terms of the pre-trial investigation, the prosecutor appealed to the investigating judge with a request to extend the pre-trial detention of a foreigner suspected of committing a crime under Article 187 Part 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
However, the prosecutor, appealing to the court, made a “mistake”, which he did not notice. However, according to the prosecutor, the “error” in the petition became the basis for the decision to refuse to grant the petition to extend the measure of restraint..
It turned out that in his petition, the prosecutor, instead of extending the house arrest, asked the suspect to continue his detention, and even referring to the fact that a person, while at large, could influence witnesses and victims.
However, as the defense rightly pointed out, the suspect had been placed under house arrest overnight and was in fact at large, and despite the absence of an electronic means of control, he faithfully performed all the duties assigned to him by the investigating judge.
In view of the above, the defense used the correct strategy and errors of the prosecution during the consideration of this petition. Therefore, the investigating judge, taking into account such “mistakes” of the prosecution in the petition, completely refused to satisfy it by refusing to choose any measure of restraint for the suspect.
If you have additional questions, call: + 38 (044) 259 71 59 and / or write to: email@example.com.