About the case: Maksim Krylov is charged under part 1 of article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative offenses of Russia for discrediting Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, although according to the protocol on administrative offense he was initially charged for holding a public event during pandemic restrictions (under article 8.6.1 of the Law of St. Petersburg “On Administrative offenses in St. Petersburg”). Krylov held a picket on March 19 on Anichkov Bridge, holding a banner with an anti-war slogan and the “Pacific” emblem.
The case will be heard by the Kuibyshev District Court of St. Petersburg, and the judge will be Yulia Alexandrovna Trofimova.
At 9:00 a.m. the secretary comes out of the courtroom and checks the attendance, at first taking me for an offender. Having found out that I wanted to be present as a public, she called the bailiff, who stood next to me during the whole hearing. They do not explain the reasons for these actions, they do not comment on my presence, although by the displeased tone of the secretary and assistant it can be concluded that my presence does not suit them.
Krylov and his defense attorney, lawyer Solnyshkin, appeared at the hearing.
Judge Trofimova declares the hearing open, identifies Krylov, explains his rights.
There are no recusal motions from the parties, the lawyer Solnyshkin declares a number of motions:
The court recesses for the resolution of the motions. The hearing resumes in 13 minutes, Judge Trofimova reads out the ruling on the motions:
The hearing is recessed to allow Krylov and defense counsel to familiarize themselves with the case file. The parties completed the familiarization in 10 minutes, and the court resumed hearing.
Defense counsel requests to exclude the protocol on administrative detention from the evidence, as it contains false information that Krylov refused to sign, because the protocol was drawn up in his absence.
Judge Trofimova proposes to proceed to the stage of studying the case materials first. The defense did not object.
The Presiding Judge reads out the case file:
According to Krylov’s statements on March 19, 2022, he did not intend to discredit the Armed Forces of Russia. Krylov only expressed his subjective disagreement with the fact of the special operation, but did not question the legality of its conduct. In the protocol on an administrative offense dated March 19, 2022, there is no record of witnesses and it is stated that these actions are not prosecutable, and they do not entail administrative liability in accordance with the Code of Administrative Offense of Russia. The case files do not have any evidence that other actions of Krylov were subsequently detected. Krylov’s actions did not show any signs of obstructing the use of the Armed Forces, since the Armed Forces were not mentioned on the poster. According to Part 5 of Article 4.1 of the Code of Administrative Offense of Russia, no one can be held administratively liable twice for the same offense. Krylov cannot be held liable for the same act under two mutually exclusive legal norms. On the basis of the above, Krylov requests that the case be dismissed.
The disclosure of the materials is over, the court will hear the statements of the defense.
Attorney Solnyshkin adds that the protocol incorrectly indicates the place of the offense, because in the photo from the case materials, Krylov was not photographed near the house 66 on Nevsky Prospekt, but on the Anichkov Bridge. In the protocol and other case materials, it is noted that the offense was committed in a large crowd of at least 50 people. But if the Judge pays attention to the same photo, there is no one near Krylov, this fact is in favor of the defendant and speaks about the incorrectness of the documents. In fact, the witnesses are police officers Starsky and Panich, who wrote the reports that formed the basis for the first protocol under Article 8.6.1 of the St. Petersburg Law.
Then Krylov speaks, his speech is difficult due to the illness he has suffered, he stammers and struggles to pronounce words. He says that he wanted to be honest for himself, because “this is a terrible situation, trouble has come. I realized that I had to tell myself this. Krylov always said that you should want peace to be, if you want it. Well, peace didn’t come out…
After having heard the arguments, the Judge leaves to make a decision.
After 16 minutes, Presiding judge Trofimova returned from the deliberation room and read out the ruling.
The court concludes that Krylov’s guilt is proven by the examined evidence, after that the judge reads out the list of all materials presented by the police (protocols, reports, etc.). Except for the protocol of administrative detention, (which is assessed as relevant, reliable, admissible, and sufficient for resolving the case), the protocols of administrative offense dated March 19, 2022, reports, and explanations are entirely similar in their content. The court critically evaluates Krylov’s version that his actions do not constitute an offense, as it is refuted by the totality of the examined evidence. The protocol on administrative offense is drawn up in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Administrative Offense of Russia by an authorized official within the legally established timeframe. The lawyer’s arguments regarding the absence of a crowd of people in the presented photo and the incorrect indication of the place of the offense, the court deems unsubstantiated.
The court has determined that Krylov’s photo was taken on Anichkov Bridge in proximity to building № 66 on Nevsky Prospect at the corner of Nevsky Prospect and the Fontanka River. In this photo, Krylov is captured during daylight hours facing the Fontanka River, that is, facing Nevsky Prospect. The arguments about the inadmissibility of the explanations and reports of police officers are considered a defense version that amounts to a reevaluation of the evidence.
The offense committed by Krylov cannot be considered insignificant, and the guilty person cannot be exonerated on this basis by the fact that he significantly violated protected social legal relations, regardless of the role of the perpetrator, the amount of damage, the occurrence of consequences and severity. In determining the punishment, the court takes into account Krylov’s personality, state of health, the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Taking into account the state of health of Krylov, the court imposes punishment in the form of a fine in the minimum amount of 30 000 rubles.
