Headnotes:
When deciding on the replacement of pre-trial detention by an alternative means, the general court must take into account, inter alia, the best interests of the child of the accused and adequately justify the impact of its decision on the child concerned.
Summary:
I. In connection with the initiation of criminal prosecution of the complainant, the public prosecutor filed a motion to take the complainant into custody on the grounds pursuant to Section 67 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The District Court ruled that the applicant is released upon finding a reason for pre-trial detention, but at the same time replacing custody with the oath and supervision of a probation officer. It also took into account that the applicant was the father of a minor whose mother had died shortly before the applicant's arrest. It is up to the complainant to take care of his minor son, who is also in a very bad mental state with suspicion of more serious health problems. The public prosecutor filed a complaint against the District Court's decision, on the basis of which the Regional Court annulled the resolution and newly ruled that the applicant's oath was not accepted and custody was not replaced by the supervision of a probation officer. In the constitutional complaint, the complainant argued that the decision of the Regional Court violated his constitutionally guaranteed rights to a fair trial and to liberty.
II. According to the Constitutional Court, the Regional Court did not convincingly explain from what specific facts (e.g. from the complainant's specific conduct or life circumstances) the conclusion on the fulfilment of the reasons for imposing advance custody and the impossibility of its replacement arises.
The complainant's family situation in particular is beyond ordinary cases. The applicant is the father of a young minor son whose mother died suddenly just before the applicant's arrest. His son was entrusted to his care in a very desperate mental state and at the same time dismal state of health with a suspicion of a more serious medical diagnosis. Immediately after entrusting his son to his care, the complainant sought the help of a child psychologist, where he and his son immediately began to attend on an outpatient basis. He made every effort to ensure that his son was provided with the necessary psychological and medical care, while ensuring a solid family background in the joint household of the complainant and his partner, who is also pregnant. The Regional Court was therefore obliged to take into account the best interests of the applicant's minor son, who would undoubtedly be seriously affected by the applicant's custody.
The Constitutional Court therefore stated that in a situation where the Regional Court did not justify its decision on the impossibility of using the alternative means replacing custody by specific facts explaining why custody is a measure necessary to achieve the purpose of criminal proceedings in the given case and why this purpose cannot be achieved otherwise, the contested resolution of the Regional Court cannot stand for lack of adequate justification. The Constitutional Court annulled the Regional Court’s decision for infringement of the rights enshrined in Article 36 (1), Article 8 (2) of the Charter.
III. The Justice Rapporteur in the case was Ludvík David. None of the Justices dissented.