Lhe criminal court of Mons, which began reading its judgment in the Mawda case early in the afternoon on Friday, considered that there was not enough legal evidence to say that Rasol DA was a co-author of wicked traffic obstruction and armed rebellion. His only implication was based on the statement of an anonymous witness. He will therefore be acquitted as pleaded by his lawyer, Me Frank Discepoli.
Rasol DA faced a seven-year prison sentence.
This 28-year-old Iraqi boy was wrongly considered by the public prosecutor to be the conveyor of the van loaded with migrants, chased during the night of May 16 to 17, 2018 on the E42 motorway, between Namur and Mons. During this chase, little Mawda was killed by police shooting.
No doubt about the driver for the court
The Mons Criminal Court has no doubts that Jargew D. was indeed the driver of the van which tried, on several occasions, to send police vehicles, as well as other vehicles, into the background. during the chase which took place on the E42 motorway, on the night of May 16 to 17, 2018. In its judgment delivered on Friday, the court considers that there are enough precise and consistent elements to prove that ‘he is indeed the author of a nasty obstacle to traffic and an armed rebellion within the meaning of the penal code. The latter is sentenced to 4 years in prison.
Jargew D. is also in a state of recidivism after being sentenced, on July 8, 2016, by the criminal court of Dunkirk (northern France).
According to the court, the evidence shows that none of the people in the van was able to escape to the Bois du Gard parking area.
The Mons correctional court ruled on Friday, in its judgment in the Mawda case, that the fatal shooting was accidental. However, he is of the opinion that the police officer committed a fault by using his weapon against a fleeing vehicle and that this fault was directly linked to the death of the little girl. He is guilty of manslaughter by want of precaution or foresight.
The court holds that the police officer never varied in his hearings, declaring that he had pulled towards the tire of the van to cause a slow puncture. In addition, at the end of the chase, he declared that he had fired a shot; so he did not try to cover it up.
According to the court, his version does not lack credibility and is supported by several elements of the file, in particular by the fact that the shot started when the police vehicle was struck by the van moving at high speed. The police officer’s colleague attests that the latter was aiming at the bottom of the van, which zigzagged at the time of the shooting. The Namur police officers, who were following the van, saw it deported to the left.
The ballistics expert estimated that the shooting could have been carried out by tension. “I can’t say it but it’s plausible. It takes a force of 28 newtons to initiate the shot. It’s not impossible to have the shot at that point; it is a classic force for this kind of weapon ”, he had declared in court.
For the court, the civil parties are wrong when they state that the shooting could not have been done accidentally.
They are also mistaken in pleading on article 38 of the law on the police function and when they assert that a police officer could not use his weapon outside this article, which relates to particular cases of use. firearms only against persons and, in particular, when these persons have committed criminal acts and they are likely to be armed or to use a weapon, including a vehicle.
The use of the weapon is not regulated by article 38 of the law on the police function; it is article 37 which regulates the means of constraint or the use of force. It subjects any use of force by the police to several conditions, which are not met in the present case.
However, the court adds that the consequences of a shooting were foreseeable and out of proportion with the objective of stopping the progression of a vehicle. It thus appears that there was no proportionality between a fleeing vehicle and the risk of the use of a firearm against that vehicle. None of the police officers interviewed subscribed to such a method to stop a fleeing vehicle. The lack of adequate training is not likely to erase the fault committed by the police officer, especially since his behavior was contrary to the law on the police function. The lack of such training should have prompted extra caution. His business of targeting the tire was risky at such a speed, at night, according to the court.
The fault is established without a reasonable doubt and is related to the death of Mawda, concludes the court, considering that the voluntary nature of the homicide, supported by the civil parties, does not exist, even according to the theory of possible fraud. . It is therefore not a matter of murder, nor of preventing assault and battery. The police officer is therefore guilty of manslaughter by lack of precaution or foresight, according to the court.