The Court of Second Instance (TSI) has rejected an appeal by the Public Prosecutions Office (MP) against the decision by the Court of First Instance (TJB) to acquit a defendant accused of the crime of infringing preventive sanitary measures.
According to the ruling from the TSI, the judge from TJB acted well and in accordance with the law by acquitting the defendant of all charges. This acquittal was on the grounds that the health authorities failed to comply with the basic legal requirements while enforcing the quarantine measure in the first place, the office of the president of the Court of Final Appeal noted in a statement.
The case goes back to September 27, 2020, when the person entered Macau via the Border Gate without any Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) certificate.
At the time, authorities transported him to the Public Hospital to perform the NAT, and, while doing so, asked him to sign a notification of a “Notice of a Short-term Medical Observation.”
In the notice, it was stated that the person should subject himself, voluntarily, to home isolation for a period of 24 hours, otherwise he would be forced to register at a medical observation venue indicated by the authorities.
In the early hours of September 28, with about 14 hours to go before the medical observation terminated, staff of the Health Bureau (SSM) from the immigration hall of the Border Gate found and detained the suspect and handed him to the Police authorities.
He was then accused by the MP of intentionally breaching the provisions of Article 30 paragraph 2 of the Law 2/2004 – Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Law – in conjunction with the violation of the epidemic prevention measures stipulated in Article 14, number 1 paragraph 1 of the same law.
Upon his trial, the TJB decided in favor of the defendant, noting that, according to the Law 2/2004 provisions, the decision to put a person under medical observation in isolation is an exclusive competence of the director of SSM or a physician legally authorized and accredited on the matter and acting under the guidance of the director of SSM.
Moreover, such a decision needs to be clearly explained in writing and supported with evidence and analysis, including a complete description of the disease and the expected period in which isolation is necessary.
The judge added in the sentence that, only after these conditions have been legally fulfilled, and if the person does not comply, can they then be accused of a crime based on said disobedience. This decision was backed up completely by the collective of judges of TSI, dismissing the appeal from the MP.
No Comments