Judgment in the Lembergs case reveals the partiality of prosecutors

If the leading prosecutors of the Prosecutor General's Office, led by the head of the state prosecutor group headed by Juris Juriss had not made false charges against Ventspils Mayor Aivars Lembergs, the trial in the first instance would not have lasted 12 years and the text would be more than half as short, proves the written full judgment of the Riga Regional Court.

In the full text of the 1,920-page judgment, almost 1,000 pages are devoted to the charges brought by prosecutors under the first and second paragraphs of Section 325, for which the court fully acquitted A. Lembergs. The considerable number of pages on the said section is formed by the court's explanations as to why A. Lembergs should be acquitted of these accusations. Initially, under Section 325, A. Lembergs was accused of about 300 episodes in connection with participation in various decision-making in Ventspils City Council and Ventspils Freeport Board. Over the 12 years, after the accusation was changed several times, some of the episodes disappeared.

Punishment for defending

Already in the first years of the proceedings, A. Lembergs and his lawyers drew the court's attention to the accusations that were clearly unfounded. Both the lawyers and A. Lembergs himself earned the wrath of prosecutors and the court for this. A. Lembergs and his lawyers were not allowed to question the witness, both by interrupting the questioning and by limiting the time of the questioning, the court prohibited the proper examination of written evidence, suspended and restricted the testimony of A. Lembergs, stopped, interrupted and restricted the speech of A. Lembergs' defense counsel. Both A. Lembergs and his advocates earned procedural sanctions - warnings and even fines - for attempts to point out the obvious nonsense in the accusation.

The trial could have been much shorter

Based on 12 years of observations in the courtroom and the available court proceeding materials, Neatkarīgā tried to reconstruct approximately how much of the 12 years of proceedings it took to deal with the first and second paragraphs of Section 325. The proceedings were opened on February 16, 2009. If such accusations were not made, the questioning of witnesses could have ended in 2012, not in 2016. The many disputes between the defense, the court and prosecutors over the examination of written evidence would also be eliminated, and the time for the examination of written evidence would have been shortened by at least nine months. In turn, the speaking time of A. Lembergs' testimony and the speeches of his defense counsel would have been reduced by more than two years in total.

Thus, if the prosecutors had not brought these rejected accusations against A. Lembergs, the proceedings at first instance could theoretically have been concluded already in 2014. However, five years of proceedings at first instance would also be a very unreasonably long time.

Unfounded accusations

In the judgment, the court did not assess the quality of prosecutors' work. It has stated the following: "The court considers the charges against Aivars Lembergs under Section 325, Paragraph one (four criminal offenses) and Paragraph Two (fifteen criminal offenses) unfounded... After hearing the explanations of the accused Aivars Lembergs, the testimony of witnesses, examining the written evidence in the case and assessing it, the court holds that Aivars Lembergs' guilt of committing a criminal offense provided for in Section 325, Paragraph two of the Criminal Law (Sections [20] to [34.2] of the accusation) and Section 325, Paragraph one of the Criminal Law (Sections [35] to [38.2] of the accusation) has not been proved and he can be acquitted based on the lack of a criminal offence."

Wanted to convict over a bus stop

One of the many examples illustrating the nonsense of prosecutors' accusations is reflected in the use of the decision of the Freeport of Ventspils Board of February 23, 2001. It is about moving the final stop of the bus further from the territory of the terminal of the joint-stock company Ventbunkers that poses a risk of explosion.

The relocation of the bus stop was decided in the interests of the safety of the residents using the stop in the event of an accident at the company. Among other things, prosecutors have used this decision to accuse A. Lembergs, without even going into what the minutes of the hearing say about A. Lembergs' participation in the adoption of this decision.

A.Lembergs testified in court that on February 23, 2001 the Board of the Freeport of Ventspils made a correct decision, important for the population and rational for the budget of Ventspils city, which they can still be proud of: "Although the situation in the world in 2001 was different from the point of view of terrorism than today, it was already clear at that time that it was not logical to drive along the street with Ventbunkers on both sides. Ventbunkers was willing to pay real estate rent for this section of the street, which they did not have to do before. It would also reduce the distance the public transport has to drive to get to the destination, resulting in lower fuel consumption. It was also beneficial from that point of view because the ticket price does not change. Weighing all the pros and cons - there basically were no cons - it turned out to be reasonable to decide not to object /to JSC Ventbunkers/ for creating a pass in /a different place in/ Dzintaru Street. It was a completely logical decision, and the main thing was that it met the security requirements, the public security interests," A. Lembergs testified in court.

He reminded the court that he had been criminally charged with the decision because he had "participated in the decision-making in a conflict-of-interest situation". Such a decision affected Lembergs' "property and material interests in the joint-stock company Ventbunkers, as it ensured the performance of the economic activity of the joint-stock company Ventbunkers".

A.Lembergs explained to the court why such an accusation is absurd: “From the point of view of performing economic activities, this decision had absolutely no effect in any way. Neither my, my son's nor my daughter's property, material interests were affected in any way by such a decision. On the contrary, it had a positive effect on the budget of the municipal passenger transport company Ventspils Reiss. They drive a smaller distance; there is less fuel consumption, but the ticket price is the same old. Fire safety, mitigation of the threat of possible consequences of an explosion - this is absolutely in line with the interests of security, and therefore the interests of the society and, consequently, the interests of the state. Many years have passed since 2001, and you know what has happened in the world. From this point of view, it was, of course, a far-sighted decision. This improved the security situation in the city and, consequently, in the country. There were no property, material interests here. The pass was built by Ventbunkers. They had to make the turning point of the bus with their own money. That's what they did. The local government did not do that, so neither I nor my children had any property or material interests here. This decision was essentially about safety and the organization of transport."

*****

Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.