Verdict No. 14/2020/HS-ST dated april 15, 2020 on resisting a law enforcement officer in performance of his/her duties

THE PEOPLE’S COURT OF NGO QUYEN DISTRICT, HAI PHONG CITY

VERDICT NO. 14/2020/HS-ST DATED APRIL 15, 2020 ON RESISTING A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN PERFORMANCE OF HIS/HER DUTIES

On April 15, 2020, at the head office of the People’s Court of Ngo Quyen district, Hai Phong city, a first instance trial is conducted to hear the criminal case No. 26/2020/TLST-HS dated April 13, 2020 under the Decision to Bring the Case to Trial No. 07/2020/QDXXST-HS dated April 13, 2020 against:

Vu Thi Thu V, born on February 21, 1977 in Hai Phong. Place of residence: No. 92, street D, ward H, Le Chan district, Hai Phong city; occupation: none; education: 05/12; ethnicity: Kinh: gender: Female; religion: None; nationality: Vietnam; father: Mr. Vu Van Q and mother: Mrs. Pham Thi S; husband: Mr. Bui Huu Tuan and 01 child; previous convictions, previous administrative violations: None; preventive measures: Be ordered to a term of residential confinement since April 4, 2020; present.

- Person with interests and obligations related to the case: Mr. Vu Xuan Qu, born in 1987; place of residence: No. 54, street N, ward L, Ngo Quyen district, Hai Phong city; present.

- Witnesses:

+ Ms. Duong Kieu L; absent.

+ Mr. Cao Van Th; absent.

THE CASE

According to the documents available in the case file and the progress at the trial, the contents of the case are summarized as follows:

Around 09:45 on April 2, 2020, Vu Thi Thu V walked to the garage of the apartment building 11 D2 in ward D to pick up a motorbike. At the entrance of the parking garage, the People’s Committee of ward D set up a task force to handle the Covid pandemic information with desks and chairs, notice boards, notebooks, hand sanitizers for working. The task force had worked from 6:00 to 12:00 on April 3, 2020, including Ms. Duong Kieu L, born in 1972; place of residence: No. 517 building D2, ward D, Ngo Quyen district, Hai Phong city and a security guard of the apartment building, Mr. Cao Van Th, born in 1965; place of residence: Ngoc L village, Dai Dong commune, Kien Thuy district, Hai Phong city, who was tasked to sit at the entrance of the parking garage to check body temperature and remind the people coming in and out of the building to wear masks and wash their hands with sanitizers. When V was coming to the parking garage, Ms. L picked up the thermometer and asked V to take her temperature, V did not obey and said, “You’ve got no damn right”. See V keeping coming into the parking garage to get the motorbike and go out, Mr. Th continued asking V to take the body temperature, but V still disobeyed and used her hand the push Mr. Th’s hand out, and then rode away. About 5 minutes later, V rode the motorbike back to the entrance of parking garage and got off. V stormed into the desk where Ms. L was sitting and asked her “Who the hell are you?” Then Ms. L replied: “My name is L”. V kept saying: “You’ll be sorry”, and then went out and got on the motorbike and left. At this time, after receiving an order from the chief of ward D police to handle the troublemaker against Covid-19 task force, Mr. Vu Xuan Qu, born in 1987; place of residence: No. 54 Nguyen Binh Khiem, Lach Tray ward, Ngo Quyen district, Hai Phong city, a police officer of ward D police, in civilian clothes, came to the scene. When he met V, Mr. Qu introduced him as a ward police officer and showed her his police identity card. Mr. Qu asked V to get off the bike and obey the order to check body temperature, but V, again, did not abide by and unlocked the ignition switch to leave. Mr. Qu intended to draw the motorbike key but V pulled it beforehand. Mr. Qu asked V to follow the order but they ended up getting into an argument. V snatched the mask on Mr. Qu's face and threw it to the ground, leaving scratches on the right face’s skin of Mr. Qu and said: “You've got no damn right to touch me”. Mr. Qu picked up the mask and put it back on, then continued asking V for compliance. V still shouted at Mr. Qu, pointing her finger at Mr.Qu’s face and head. Then, V continued snatching Mr. Qu’s mask and threw it to the ground. Mr. Qu used his right hand to push V's hand away and the hand hit V’s face. V rushed to Mr. Qu cursing and throwing 3 slaps on Mr.Qu’s face and head. After that, police officers of ward D police brought V to the headquarters, made a report on offense caught in the act, and then forwarded the case file to the Police Investigation Body of Ngo Quyen district.

Regarding civil liability: Defendant Vu Thi Thu V inflicted injuries to the Mr. Vu Xuan Qu, leaving scratches on his face skin, Mr. Qu refuses an injury assessment and does not claim damages from V.

The decision on prosecution under reduced procedures No. 04/QD-VKS dated April 13, 2020 of the People’s Procuracy of Ngo Quyen district, Hai Phong city was issued against Vu Thi Thu V for offense “Resisting a law enforcement officer in performance of his/her duties” as prescribed in clause 1 Article 330 of the Criminal Code.

At the trial:

- Defendant Vu Thi Thu V admits her offense as mentioned in the decision on prosecution under reduced procedures of the People’s Procuracy of Ngo Quyen district, Hai Phong city.

- The procurator holding prosecution right delivers the arraignment and argument: Uphold the decision on prosecution of the defendant as specified. Based on the nature and severity of the offense, record, mitigating circumstances of the defendant, the procurator of the People’s Procuracy of Ngo Quyen district, Hai Phong city requests:

Pursuant to Clause 1 Article 330; Point i, s Clause 1 Article 51; Article 65 of the Criminal Code, Vu Thi Thu V, for offense “Resisting a law enforcement officer in performance of his/her duties”, is sentenced to 6 months to 9 months in jail, with 6 months to 9 months suspended and 12 months to 18 months of supervised probation, from the date of pronouncement of first instance verdict. Regarding civil liability: The person with rights and obligations related to the case, Mr. Vu Xuan Qu, gives no request, so the Presiding Judge is recommended not to consider that further. With reference to court fees: Defendant Vu Thi Thu V has to pay VND 200,000 (two hundred thousand) dong of first instance criminal court fee.

After closing the argument, with the last words, the defendant pleads the Presiding Judge to reduce her penalty and enable her to benefit the leniency of the law.

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT

Based on the contents of the case and documents available in the case file that have been litigated at the trial, the Presiding Judge shall determine as follows:

- Regarding the legality of procedural acts and decisions:

This is an offense caught in act, with clear evidence, misdemeanor offense, and the offender has clear place of residence and background. Thus, the case is eligible for the reduced procedures prescribed in Article 456 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Viet Nam.

 [1] The Police Investigation Agency of Ngo Quyen district, investigators, the People’s Procuracy of Ngo Quyen district and procurators in the course of investigation and prosecution, have complied with procedures and taken actions intra vires as prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code. The defendant gives no opinion and complaint as to the acts and decisions of the presiding agencies and presiding officers. Therefore, the procedural acts and decisions of the presiding authorities and presiding officers have been made legally.

- With reference to grounds for identifying count of offense and applicable law:

 [2] At the investigation body and at the trial, Vu Thi Thu V has given statements as follows: Around 09:45 on April 3, 2020, at the apartment building 11 D2, ward D, Ngo Quyen district, Hai Phong city. Defendant Vu Thi Thu V resist and defy the order to check body temperature from Ms. Duong Thuy L, a member of the Covid-19 task force, and V also used force to snatch the mask and threw 3 slaps on the face and head of Mr. Vu Xuan Qu, a police officer in Dong Quoc ward and a member of the Covid-19 task force in ward D. Defendant Vu Thi Thu V violated point 1.9 Article 1 of Official Dispatch No. 45/TANDTC-PC in Viet Nam dated March 30, 2020 of the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court and there are substantial grounds for concluding that Vu Thi Thu V is guilty of the offense “Resisting a law enforcement officer in performance of his/her duties” as prescribed in clause 1 Article 330 of the Criminal Code.

 [3] The count of offense and applicable law proposed by the People’s Procuracy of Ngo Quyen district is accordant with the law.

 [4] The defendant’s offense conduct is dangerous to society and infringes the State’s activities in administrative management. Especially in the current period, the people nationwide are strictly implementing the Directive No. 16/CT-TTg in Viet Nam dated March 31, 2020 of the Prime Minister on Covid-19 prevention and control, hence, it is necessary to impose a heavy sentence sufficient to rehabilitate the defendant in particular and deter similar criminals in general.

- With reference to background:

 [5] Defendant Vu Thi Thu V has no previous conviction or previous administrative violation, she committed the crime which is misdemeanor for the first time; at the investigation body and at the trial, she showed cooperative attitude and repentance by giving apology on means of mass media. These are mitigating circumstances specified in points i, s clause 1 Article 51 of the Criminal Code. From the acts and background of the defendant as examined, it is not necessary to force the defendant to be isolated from society, but just a community sentence is enough to rehabilitate the defendant.

-  With reference to civil liability:

 [6] The person with rights and obligations related to the case, Mr. Vu Xuan Qu, does not claim damages for his injuries, so the Presiding Judge does not consider that further.

- With reference to court fees:

 [9] The defendant must bear first instance criminal fee as prescribed by law.

- With reference to right to appeal:

 [10] The defendant and the person with rights and obligations related to the case have right to appeal the verdict as per the law.

Therefore,

HEREBY DECIDE

Pursuant to clause 1 Article 330; point i, s clause 1 Article 51; Article 65 of the Criminal Code in Viet Nam: for the offense “Resisting a law enforcement officer in performance of his/her duties” sentence Vu Thi Thu V to 6 (six) months in prison, with 6 months suspended  and 12 (twelve) months of supervised probation from the date of pronouncement of first instance verdict.

Assign Vu Thi Thu V to the People’s Committee of Dong Hai ward, Le Chan district, Hai Phong city for supervision and rehabilitation during the probation period.

During the probation period, if the person serving suspended sentence intentionally violates the obligations prescribed in the Law on Criminal Execution at least 2 times, the Court may force persons on probation to serve the original full prison sentence. Where the person serving suspended sentence changes his/her place of residence, Clause 1 Article 69 of the Law on Criminal Execution in Viet Nam shall apply.

With reference to court fees: Pursuant to Points a and c, Clause 1, Article 23 of Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 in Viet Nam dated December 30, 2016 of the National Assembly Standing Committee on court fees and charges, collection, exemption, reduction, payment, management and use thereof, Vu Thi Thu V is forced to pay VND 200,000 (two hundred thousand dong) of first instance criminal court fee.

With reference to the right to appeal: The defendant is entitled to appeal this verdict within 15 days from the date of pronouncement. The person with interests and obligations related to the case, Mr. Vu Xuan Qu, has the right to appeal the part related to his rights and obligations within 15 days from the date of pronouncement of this verdict.

In case the judgment or court decision is enforced as per regulations in Article 2 of the Law on enforcements of civil judgments in Viet Nam, the judgment creditor and judgment debtor are lawfully allowed to reach an agreement on judgment enforcement, request judgment enforcement, be subject to voluntary execution or coercive judgment enforcement in compliance with regulations in Article 6, 7 and 9 of the Law on enforcement of civil judgments, and the effective period of judgment enforcement shall comply within provisions in Article 30 of the Law on enforcement of civil judgments.