Rejecting the petition for injustice in the case of 14 years of prosecution and new verdict

The appellate court determined that there was sufficient basis to determine that the defendants' accomplices intentionally caused injury, so it rejected the appeal of the two defendants related to the case that was prosecuted 14 years later and then sentenced at first instance.

Defendants Quan Dac Thuy and Quan Dac Quy - Photo: GIANG LONG

From December 19 to 21, the Hanoi People's Court brought two brothers, Quan Dac Thuy (38 years old) and Quan Dac Quy (36 years old), from Van Con commune, Hoai Duc district, to the appeal trial for the crime of intentionally causing injury according to the defendants' appeal.

This case has lasted from 2003 to now for 14 years with more than 10 investigations and additional investigations against the defendants Thuy and Quy.

After 14 years of prosecution, last May, the People's Court of Hoai Duc district sentenced Quy to 5 years and 6 months in prison and Thuy to 5 years in prison for intentionally causing injury, even though the witnesses named in the decision to bring the case to trial were not summoned and did not appear to participate in the proceedings in court.

At the end of the trial, the two defendants appealed their innocence.

At the appeal hearing, the Hanoi People's Court rejected the defendants' appeals for innocence because it believed that there was a basis to determine that they were accomplices in intentionally causing injury, the first instance verdict was correct in convicting the right people, the right crimes, and the punishment was commensurate with the defendants' actions.

According to the first instance verdict, at around 4:00 p.m. on July 19, 2003, due to a conflict over a land dispute, Mr. Do Dang Chuyen (69 years old) and his son Do Dang Cua (40 years old) got into a scuffle with Mr. Quan Dac Hop - the biological father of Thuy and Quy. During the scuffle, Mr. Cua was beaten with a weapon by Thuy and Quy, causing injuries.

The first instance verdict accused Quy and Thuy of using an iron pipe and a knife to slash and assault Mr. Cua, causing more than 34% injury.

In addition, Mr. Cua's biological father was also injured, but there was not enough evidence to prove it, so the investigation agency withdrew the documents.

At the appeal court, the defendants argued that they were not present at the scene and hoped that the panel of judges would consider carefully and clear their names. Meanwhile, the defendants’ defense attorneys requested to cancel the entire first instance judgment and reinvestigate or cancel the first instance judgment to suspend the case because they believed that the murder weapon was not recovered, the victim had many contradictory statements...

However, this was not accepted by the appellate court.

According to Tuoi Tre