Omonia Police Station: “lenient” sentences for officers over gang rape of 19-year-old woman

The Mixed Jury Court of Athens handed down “lenient” sentences to the two police officers from Omonia Police Station who were found guilty of jointly committing rape.

The court, recognising the mitigating circumstance of a previous lawful life for both convicted officers, ruled that the first police officer should be sentenced to four years in prison, while the second officer was sentenced to four years and five months in prison for the offence of jointly committed rape and violating personal data protection laws.

For both officers, it was decided that their appeals would have suspensive effect, while no financial restrictions were imposed on them.

It is recalled that earlier in the morning, the court did not adopt the prosecutor’s recommendation and, by majority decision, found the two police officers guilty of the offence of jointly committed rape, while one of them was unanimously convicted for recording the incident on camera. As for the third defendant, who was also a police officer, he was acquitted of the charge of aiding and abetting rape.

The prosecutor’s closing argument

It is recalled that the prosecutor had requested the acquittal, due to reasonable doubt, of the two police officers alleged to have been the direct perpetrators of the gang rape, stating among other things in his closing argument:

“They have committed serious disciplinary offences, but despite the moral condemnation involved, at the level of criminal responsibility the situation is not clear-cut.”

During his argument, he also clarified that he was not convinced by the complainant’s testimony that she had not consented to any sexual act.

“The complainant’s behaviour is not consistent with that of a person who was frightened and had suffered violence. No distress or refusal emerged, she did not say ‘no’, she did not show resistance. She did not leave the room even when she was alone, despite the fact that the door was half-open and unlocked. She did not call for help. She could have gone out and asked for help at the domestic violence office, which was located next door,” he said, adding that her subsequent change of mind cannot be considered as a lack of consent.

He justified his position, particularly after the audience expressed its dissatisfaction with the acquittal recommendation, stating:

“We are not here to judge the morals and behaviour of the defendants; we are not a court of morality. That was judged in the disciplinary proceedings. In order to convict, we need full proof. The commission of the sexual act was proven, but it was not proven that there was no consent.”