Suddenly, on the empty road, the dim light of the headlights of an oncoming car flickered, and after a moment the cars collided. S. managed to get out of the mutilated car, overcoming acute pain, only in a few minutes. I saw that his car was at an angle across the road, and on the side of the road, at some distance - VAZ 2108. A collision occurred, as they say, head-on-head - both cars had a severely damaged front end. The G8 driver showed no signs of life …

Vladimir S., father of Andrei, already told us how events developed further.



- When I arrived at the scene of the accident, I immediately noticed - there are really a lot of policemen around! It turned out that as a result of the accident, the driver of the G8, a police officer, died on the spot!

Vladimir, a driver with almost 30 years of experience, was surprised by the location of the cars - the BMW was in its lane, and the broken Lada stood on the side of the road.

After completing the materials, the father and his son and several friends went to the emergency room. There, Andrei was given an X-ray, which determined the presence of serious damage to both legs. When the plaster was applied, a policeman suddenly burst into the waiting room and, shouting “I will kill you!” Rushed to the young man lying on the couch. Friends overshadowed the victim, and the guardian of the law, swearing obscenely, left. But he promised to return …

And he didn’t deceive: at the exit from the emergency room they were already waiting for the traffic police - to send them for examination for intoxication. As it turned out, all these were still “flowers” ​​…

At one in the morning the doctor found that there was no trace of alcohol. Then the traffic police again pushed Andrei into the car and went to the scene of the accident. After completing the accident, Andrei was taken to the police department for questioning by an investigator. His office was on the fourth floor, while there was no elevator in the building. Perhaps this deserves a separate story, as a father on his shoulders dragged an adult son to the fourth floor, and behind them policemen drove them …

What happened for three hours behind a closed door is not known, but only at five in the morning the officer graciously allowed to take home a completely unconscious young man. Later, Andrei recalled that it seemed that the investigator was forcing him to sign something. What exactly - did not remember. After some time, the case was transferred to the prosecutor's office to an investigator named Koval. And he said at the first meeting: “Take the lawyer from Moscow, at least, the result will be one. You will sit! "


Soon we ourselves saw firsthand "justice in the Urengoy style." The human rights advocate, “Driving, ” provided Andrei with a lawyer, and he flew to Novy Urengoy for trial.

At the very first meeting, the lawyer filed a motion for an additional examination. As part of the investigation, it was already carried out: in the case, the expert’s opinion was filed. That's just practically none of the 11 questions he was asked could give an answer! Neither the actual speed of the cars, nor the circumstances of the case were established … Moreover, in the research part of his conclusion (for the truthfulness and objectivity of which, by the way, the expert is criminally responsible!) He writes: “according to the information at his disposal … it’s impossible for sure determine the place of collision ”, despite the fact that the conclusions indicate that … the place of collision is uniquely located on the oncoming lane for BMW -“ based on the accident pattern and inspection protocol ”! What?

Naturally, we insisted on re-examination. The court refused an examination!

But he called to the next meeting of "his" expert who conducted the initial examination. He immediately stated that his conclusions were the ultimate truth, and the invited specialist was not at all entitled to give any conclusions. Moreover, his only argument was a reference to the "internal" instruction of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate, which, as it turned out, applies … only to experts - police officers.

We did not stop there and petitioned for the interrogation of witnesses whose signatures were under the scheme of the incident and inspection protocols. We managed to find one of them. And it turned out - he had never been at the scene and did not sign any papers! The hearing was adjourned.

A month later, it suddenly became clear that the court … did not manage to call him - the negligent postman summed up: he did not present the summons.

Further, the police officers who executed the incident were invited to the hall. They all said that a snowstorm was blowing that day, and a lot of people gathered at the scene of the accident. And also, that all of them (including the investigator) were in a state of shock, since a colleague whom they knew well was killed.

“Then it’s understandable why such an absurdity appeared in the accident scheme, ” our lawyer began his speech. - If you take the calculator and add up all the distances indicated on the incident diagram, it turns out that the VAZ 2108 car has a width of only 30 (!) Cm. In fact, it’s 1.5 m. So, if you put this figure in the diagram, place the collision automatically “moves” into the BMW lane. And the road itself, really having the same width, if you add the dimensions indicated on the diagram, it changes: its width ranged from 16 to 19 meters! What testifies: the place of collision is indicated incorrectly. The investigator immediately referred to his shock state and the fact that he no longer remembers anything. The judge, all this time, lazily flipped through the case materials …


At this, the hearing ended and the parties went on to debate. It was clear that the sentence had already been written. The prosecutor, who spoke, requested that Andrei S. be sentenced to six months of corrective labor. The court retired to the meeting.

What was our surprise when, after a couple of hours, the judge read out the verdict, which sentenced Andrei S. to two years (!) Of corrective labor and deprivation of the right to governing him for three years. You will not even see this in the cinema - for the court to sentence the defendant to a term longer than what the prosecution requests! A few years ago, the Constitutional Court clarified that the court cannot perform an accusatory function not peculiar to it.