Benko’s lawyer Wess makes serious allegations against judicial processes

The defense’s criticism is directed less at individual decisions than at the interaction of information flows, public perception and procedural fairness in one of the country’s most sensational white-collar criminal proceedings.

Core of the criticism: Contrary to numerous headlines, René Benko is at the OGH no complaint against pre-trial detention as such introduced. Rather, the fundamental rights complaint referred exclusively to two points of the decision of the Vienna Higher Regional Court of February 16, with which the pre-trial detention was continued. There is only one possible Violation of the requirement to expedite detention matters been asserted.

No possibility of correction

According to Wess, the Supreme Court did not share this legal position, but the Supreme Court’s communication related to it not to the defensebut was sent to the Economic and Corruption Public Prosecutor’s Office (WKStA). However, this was not a party to the fundamental rights complaint proceedings. Nevertheless, the media reported on the content of the decision – from the defense’s point of view in a misleading manner.

Several reports said that the Supreme Court had “rejected a detention complaint,” “rejected an application for release from custody,” or that Benko had “dismissed his complaint.” All of this is factually incorrect, emphasizes Wess. The defense also has no possibility of correction because she was unaware of the OGH announcement until the reports appeared.

What is particularly problematic from the defense’s point of view is that the reporting was directly linked to the detention hearing scheduled for Thursday. There was even speculation in a high-circulation media that pre-trial detention could “smoothly transition into criminal detention.” In this context, Wess speaks of one Violation of the presumption of innocence and an attempt to put public pressure on the responsible court.

No opportunity to prepare for detention hearing

The defense also sharply criticized the process of preparation for the habeas corpus hearing. Since April 7th, attempts have been made to clarify whether and on what grounds the WKStA would request a further continuation of the pre-trial detention. It was only on April 14th that it was announced by telephone that such an application would be submitted. However, the written application was only submitted the day before the hearing.

This meant that the defense had less than 24 hours to prepare the content. Wess argues that a serious exercise of the rights of defense was not possible under these circumstances. Against this background and because of what he considered to be false media prejudgment, René Benko ultimately decided not to hold the habeas corpus hearing

Statement from the WKStA

According to the APA, the WKStA rejected the accusation. When asked by the APA, WKStA spokesman Martin Ortner said: “We have fully complied with the law. There is no obligation in the law to issue such a statement.” Legally, the public prosecutor’s office can only submit its application for an extension of detention during the habeas corpus hearing. This examination is due ex officio no later than two months later. The court will therefore also examine René Benko’s pre-trial detention on its own initiative today, Thursday, and decide whether to extend it.