Victim of "Rolex Gang" ran over robber to death near Lisbon Airport
A robbed driver near Lisbon Airport pursued the robbers and hit a motorcycle, causing the death of one of them. Legal experts debate the judicial consequences.
Robbed and suspect on the same day: the legal dilemma of the BMW driver
A man was robbed at gunpoint near Lisbon Airport this Tuesday and, minutes later, became the main suspect in a homicide. Google News PT — Crime (pt) reports the case via Observador: after losing two Rolex watches and other jewellery valued at 100,000 euros, the driver pursued the motorcycle-riding robbers and hit one of them, causing his death.
The robbery on Avenida de Berlim
At 13:09, at a crossing near the airport, a BMW Series 7 stopped at a traffic light when exiting Avenida de Berlim, heading south-north. The vehicle was rear-ended by two suspects on motorcycles, who used the collision as a pretext to approach the driver. One of the robbers was armed with a knife, the other with a firearm. No shots were fired.
The robbers took two Rolex watches, a chain and three bracelets. The total value of the goods was assessed by the PSP at 100,000 euros.
The pursuit and the robber's death
After a few metres of escape, the BMW driver hit the side of the motorcycle of the suspect who had carried the white weapon during the robbery. The motorcycle skidded and the driver fell on Avenida de Berlim, next to the Lisbon Fire Sappers Regiment — the Encarnação Barracks. The VMER team declared death at the scene.
The Judicial Police seized the motorcycle and the BMW for examination. Most of the stolen goods were recovered near the robber who died, who had no identification documents on him. The only object not recovered was the Rolex watch belonging to the woman in the vehicle.
Inevitable criminal inquiry
Whenever a death from unnatural causes occurs, the opening of a criminal inquiry is mandatory. Criminal defence lawyer Paulo Saragoça da Matta has no doubt that the driver committed a crime: "There was a crime committed by the car's driver, there is no doubt about that," he told Observador.
The same lawyer warns, however, that it is necessary to ascertain whether the action of the robbery victim "is 'covered' and is considered not punishable by virtue of self-defence, if it is punishable with a light sentence or if it deserves punishment under the general terms of intentional homicide".
Negligent or intentional homicide?
Criminal defence lawyer Paulo Sá e Cunha places the case between "negligent homicide" and "intentional homicide". The difference lies in intention. In the first scenario, the sentence ranges from 3 to 5 years, with the possibility of a suspended sentence. In the second — simple homicide — the range rises to 8 to 16 years, with no possibility of sentence suspension.
Saragoça da Matta explains the distinction with precision: "One thing is the pursuit being carried out to run over him. Another thing is a pursuit in which he [the robbery victim], when approaching, gives the motorcycle a slight touch." For the lawyer, this difference "is the total difference, because it is the difference between negligent homicide and intentional homicide, with what is called eventual or even necessary intent".
If the BMW had travelled at extreme speed and run over the motorcycle without stopping, "the speed at which they were travelling could not fail to admit (…) the result of death as possible and probable," added Saragoça da Matta, acknowledging that aggravated assault resulting in death could also be at issue.
Both lawyers rule out the possibility of qualified homicide, which requires the criterion of "special depravity of the agent". The fact that the driver had previously been a victim of an armed robbery constitutes, according to Saragoça da Matta, "a circumstance always in favour" in the proceedings.
Self-defence in debate
Given the immediate context — the robbery occurred seconds and metres before — the question of self-defence will, according to both lawyers, be unavoidable in the proceedings.
Paulo Sá e Cunha admits, however, that "our courts, which are very restrictive regarding self-defence, do not accept this idea", lamenting that "normally, those who act in self-defence face more problems than the criminals themselves".
Proportionality constitutes another barrier in traditional judicial interpretation: because life has a higher legal value than property, the classical view holds that "the life of the thief, from the point of view of legal goods, has a higher value than a material asset", explains the lawyer. This perspective implies that killing to protect material goods, however valuable they may be, would not be permissible.
Sá e Cunha rejects this interpretation: "Self-defence, in the Penal Code, is not subject to proportionality criteria between the legal good defended and the legal good harmed." The limit, he argues, lies in the "ethical or social limit of self-defence", exemplified by the case of "the owner of an orchard who fires shotgun rounds at a child stealing fruit from him".
The "immediacy" of the assault
The same expert also raises the possibility of the court decreeing the "exclusion of unlawfulness" for the robbed driver. For this to occur, it would be necessary, among other conditions, for the verification of the "immediacy" of the assault — a concept that divides legal scholars.
Sá e Cunha takes a clear position: "There are those who believe, and I happen to be of this line of thought, that in crimes against property, as is the case with robbery or theft, the assault only ceases to be immediate when the author of the robbery has peaceful possession of the thing that was stolen." In this interpretation, a pursuit immediately following the dispossession of the goods would still fall within the scope of self-defence.
The inquiry is ongoing. The Judicial Police is conducting investigations into the exact circumstances of the collision and the speed at which the BMW was travelling at the moment of impact with the motorcycle.
Source: Google News PT — Crime (pt)