A relaxed judge

During the last couple of court hearings, the presiding judge Steinmetz seemed remarkably relaxed.
For months he has been pushing to bring the trial to an end. Every time the defence made a submission, he was annoyed; every delay irritated him. Then, on day 84, he finished at midday with the words “we have no programme left for today” - as if this was some sort of theatre rehearsal. And this Wednesday, the hearing lasted only one and a half hours before the judge finished and cancelled the following hearing. All this in a trial with 20 lawyers and three interpreters, some of whom travel almost a thousand kilometres for every court appearance.

Somehow, the judge does not appear to be in a hurry to bring the trial to a close any more. Some of those observing the trial wonder what prompted this change in attitude. Several possibilities come to mind. Maybe it was the release of the three juvenile defendants - the court had been criticised for keeping them in custody for so long. Or is it the fact that the German parliament is about to make a decision on expanding the Atalanta mission to go on land. Is the trial not supposed to end before that decision has been made? Or does the court need more time to prepare the verdicts – but isn't 18 months enough time?

In the meantime, some people consider applying to the Guinness Book of Records to have the trial registered as the longest running 'piracy trial' in history...

“I am a prisoner of my illness”

Day 65 – 21 December 2011. The last court day for the year.

A new challenge against the judge, decision on the previous challenge, several statements by the defendants and a special folder.

The day started with one of the lawyers reading out a challenge against the judge on the basis that the judge is biased. The reasons being that the judge – in his last decision to decline an application for bail for the under-age defendants – suggested that anyone who showed sympathy for the defendants would also be prepared to aid their escape. An accusation that is based purely on speculation. The judge had used this reason before and, when asked for any evidence of this, back-tracked and refused to give any more details. Now the judge has used this line of argument again.

The second reason for his bias was a criticism of the manager of a facility of youth accommodation. The organisation had been asked by both the defence and by the Hamburg Youth Authority about the possibility of housing the three under-age defendants in one of their flats. As a result, the manager had attended a few court hearings and had applied for a visit to the youth detention centre, together with her staff and some of the youth that currently live there. This is part of the participatory concept of the organisation. The judge has turned this against the defendants by claiming the manager was 'not maintaining the required professional distance' to the defendants. An obvious case of the judge stepping outside his competency. This has been the third such challenge against the judge.

After that, one defendant after another made personal statements. They were polite but firm challenges  to the judge to end the trial. One could feel the frustration of the defendants, having been in detention for a year and a half, without knowing how much more time they would have to spend locked up, their health deterioating and having to sit through 65 days at court without understanding much of the proceedings. Here are a few quotes:

“I am no longer alive. I can't continue to sit here like a school child in a classroom. Please don't hesitate to pass a verdict. I don't mind what it is, as long as it's soon.”

“I've been getting more and more ill in prison. I am mentally no longer present, I think of my family, they are dependent on me. I therefore ask you to pass whatever verdict you find suitable.”

“I have been waiting for my verdict for thirteen months, I've been very ill. I am a prisoner of my illness. When I try to explain my situation to my family, they don't believe me. I have instructed my lawyers not to file any more applications. There must be an end now. Enough is enough.“

And another queried the judge and said:

“I would like to ask you a question: do you think it is a person's right to try to save themselves if they see a chance to do so? I want to save myself. My lawyers have tracked down a witness who was willing to testify that I was forced to participate. You have spoken to the witness. I want to pursue this.“

Then, during the lunch break a decision on the previous challenge against the judge was announced. The judge read out the ruling, made by his colleagues, who found that there was no bias. This doesn't come as a surprise, but what we didn't expect was that the judge actually has a special folder for 'applications declined', and that he declared this folder to be full now and that he would start a second volume for the next application.

Finally, the judge announced that, because of the pending challenge, he has not been able to set dates for the trial after the end of January (the judge is limited in what they can do while a challenge is pending). Even if everything is wound down now, there will be 21 closing addresses, which by themselves are likely to take more than the scheduled court dates in January. Because no dates have been set in advance, by now most lawyers will be booked on most days in February and March. In the worst case, this could mean that there will be a break for a couple of months before the trial resumes in April.

So the day ends with another nightmare scenario for the defendants.

Day 58 - 21.11.11: More bizarre reasons for keeping the accused in remand

This happened after the lawyers of the 3 under-age accused explained why their clients must be released - after having been imprisoned for 18 months and 58 days of court.

Today, the judge found a new reason why the defendants – who have now been remanded for one and a half years – still can't be released on bail. Previously, he had claimed that there was flight risk, despite the fact that none of the accused had shown any desire to be in war-torn Somalia at the moment. Then he used the fact that some people had organized solidarity events for the accused against them, claiming that these people would aid their escape. Now he's on to something new:

the defendants don't have residency in Germany – and they can't possibly be released into an illegal status!

So, first they are brought here against their will and locked up. Then the fact that they don't have any social relations in Hamburg is a reason why they have to be isolated further. And now the fact that they are here is reason enough why they can't be released. In its Kafkaesque argument, the court says that, if they were released, they would be here illegally. Therefore they would have to be deported. But that would mean they would abscond, so therefore they can't be released. The fact that the three under-age defendants would in all likelihood receive a temporary permit (“Duldung”) is only a minor factor here.  

So what is the legal status of the 10 accused? Are they being held illegally? A prison cell is not an extra-territorial place - so surely if they live on German soil, that must mean that they have some sort of residency status.