Eating the evidence in a criminal case is considered legal by the prosecution

In the summer of this year, the material evidence seized in a bribery criminal case - honey - disappeared from the criminal case: it was happily eaten by the students of the Jelgava primary school Valdeka, according to anonymized correspondence between the persons involved in the criminal proceedings and the General Prosecutor's Office, which has been made available to Neatkarīgā.

The process facilitators - the Internal Security Bureau (ISB) and the Prosecutor's Office of the Zemgale Court District - are trying to free themselves from responsibility for the destruction of material evidence. Prosecutor General Juris Stukāns, on the other hand, sends complaints addressed to him about the negligence of the inspector and the prosecutor to the same Prosecutor's Office of the Zemgale Court District, where the complaints are assessed by the same prosecutors against whom the complaints were received.

Complaint of illegal handling of evidence

Nobody would have learned anything about the missing honey from the criminal case files, if Uldis, a person involved in the criminal proceedings initiated by the ISB, hadn't complained to the Prosecutor General that a criminal offence had been committed - the removal of evidence, the seized property, from the register of physical evidence and the consumption of this evidence. No law provides for the right of the process facilitator to arbitrarily remove physical evidence or seized property from a criminal case and have it eaten. In his application to Prosecutor General J. Stukāns, the person involved in the criminal proceedings, Uldis, has requested that criminal proceedings be initiated against the persons he considers guilty of using the seized property - the process facilitators, i.e. Anna Ervalde, Senior Inspector of Group 4 of the Pre-Trial Investigation Division of the ISB, and Pāvels Sondors, the prosecutor supervising the criminal case and later the process facilitator in this criminal case at the Prosecutor's Office of the Zemgale Court District.

A piece of a criminal case was eaten

In early August this year, it was reported in the media that the ISB had asked the Prosecutor's Office of the Zemgale Court District to initiate criminal proceedings against two State Police officers who had demanded and accepted almost 49.6 kilograms of honey as a bribe from a driver of a vehicle. The police officers had not issued an administrative offence report for the traffic offences in the interests of the honey supplier. The police officers were caught by the ISB operatives.

In October this year, Uldis, who was involved in the criminal proceedings, discovered that the honey seized during the search, arrested and included in the register of tangible evidence had disappeared. He managed to find out that the honey had already been handed over to the Latvian Beekeeping Society in the spring by decision of A. Ervalde. The complainant pointed out to the Prosecutor General that when the evidence was handed over for sale, the process facilitator had not even considered it necessary to check whether the seized honey was fit for human consumption. The applicant explains that, according to the law, the process facilitator was required either to hand over the physical evidence to its owner, the Dobele municipality farm Lielvaicēni, or to hand it over to the Provision State Agency for safekeeping against signature. The applicant has also been able to establish that the Latvian Beekeeping Society has not been informed of who is the owner of the honey. As the sale of honey is not a function of the Society, it has decided to transfer the honey received from the process facilitator to the primary school Valdeka in Jelgava free of charge.

The applicant considers that the arbitrary removal of the seized honey from the criminal file constitutes an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Criminal Law. In particular, the intentional destruction, damage or falsification of criminal file material is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a period of up to three years or temporary deprivation of liberty.

The complaint is heard by the one about whom the complaint is made

The Prosecutor General J. Stukāns has not assessed Uldis' application himself, but has delegated the task to the same body about which the complaint is made - the Prosecutor's Office of the Zemgale Court District. Logically, it concluded that the materials of the criminal case, which it had monitored and facilitated itself, had been eaten legally. The applicant's complaint about the actions of the prosecutor and the ISB inspector in relation to the honey is of a declaratory nature; the criminal case is currently already before the court and, consequently, the process facilitator is already the court; Uldis' application does not contain any information indicating that a criminal offence may have been committed and, therefore, the grounds for initiating criminal proceedings laid down by the Criminal Procedure Law cannot be established. The reply to Uldis was signed by the Chief Prosecutor of the Zemgale Court District, Aigars Bičuss.

After reading the Chief Prosecutor's reply, Uldis wrote another letter to the Prosecutor General, this time complaining about the actions of Chief Prosecutor A. Bičuss. The applicant asked the Prosecutor General "to declare the informative letter of A. Bičus null and void" and to examine the application for the opening of criminal proceedings on its merits.

J.Stukāns again did not evaluate this letter himself but forwarded it to A. Bičuss, about whom Uldis had complained. In another reply to Uldis, the Chief Prosecutor laconically explained, inter alia, "The mere fact that the Applicant declaratively asks to initiate criminal proceedings against certain officials involved in the criminal proceedings, which is related to the disposition of material evidence in a criminal case, is not a lawful basis for taking a decision under Chapter 30 of the Criminal Procedure Law..."

Upon receiving such a reply, Uldis once again complained to J. Stukāns, pointing out that the Criminal Procedure Law prohibits assigning the examination of a complaint to the same person whose action or decision is being appealed. J. Stukāns again did not assess this complaint himself, but delegated it to the same Chief Prosecutor, A. Bičuss. The Chief Prosecutor replied to Uldis even more succinctly - "the merits of the applicant's complaint will not be examined."

Neatkarīgā found out from Uldis' defense lawyers that currently, only the court can decide on the question of initiating criminal proceedings in connection with the destruction of criminal case materials.