Off the wire
U.S. dollar mixed against other major currencies  • 2/3 of hard left voters refuse to endorse centrist frontrunner Macron in presidency's run-off  • Macedonia's former Speaker refuses to hand over his post  • Portuguese president optimistic regarding Eurostat unemployment figures  • Sweden aims to achieve 95 pct broadband coverage by 2020  • Russia to stage military parades in 28 cities to mark Victory Day  • Nigeria focusing on development of domestic tourism: minister  • 80 British troops arrive in South Sudan to support UN mission  • Turkey, EU leaders to meet despite strains: minister  • Major U.S. airlines grilled before Congress after passenger's violent removal  
You are here:   Home

A Belgian who calls police officers "smurf" asks for acquittal

Xinhua, May 2, 2017 Adjust font size:

A Belgian who was sentenced in February 2016 to three months suspended jail for calling police officers "smurf" on his Facebook page, appeared before the Court of Appeal of Brussels on Tuesday, reports the Belgian news agency Belga.

According to the Correctional Court of Antwerp, Cain R., a 37-year-old man from Antwerp, was found guilty of cyber-harassment.

On Tuesday, the prosecutor-general did not demand a conviction. Counsel for the accused requested his acquittal but the civil party believes that Cain R. went too far.

Cain R., which was tracked on Facebook by more than 150,000 Internet users, had been checked twice on May 11 2015 by the road police in the ring of Brussels.

During these two checks, he took pictures of the agents. One of the officers had asked him to delete the photos, which he had not done. On the same day, Cain R. put his photos on his Facebook page and called the agents "smurf".

The criminal court had sentenced R. in February 2016 to a suspended sentence of three months in prison and a fine of 1,200 euros for cyber-harassment. He had also been prosecuted for breach of the law on the privacy of agents but had been acquitted on this point.

On Tuesday, the prosecutor-general did not demand a conviction because he was not convinced that the facts could be described as cyber-harassment. But, the lawyer of one of the agents asks for a conviction. Enditem