Sara was found guilty by the District Court in Cottbus (main hearing was on 02/29/2016) of having committed theft in minor value. The sentence by the district court turned out to be unusually high: instead of the normally usual fine, she was sentenced to two months in prison. She appealed against the judgement of the district court.
In the public appeal hearing, interested spectators were exposed to strong entrance controls: personal data were noted and identity documents copied, police in civvies and criminal police were sitting in the audience.
The accused was led in handcuffs into the courtroom and in the fifteen-minute break she was brought away in handcuffs again to spend the break in a cell in the court basement, so any contact with spectators could be suppressed.
Sara’s lawyer pleaded in mitigation of the unreasonably high punishment, down to 30 daily rates. The prosecutor on the other hand insisted to set an example and found that an imprisonment of 2 months would be appropriate. The argument of the prosecutor was that the punishment should be higher than usual, given the fact that the accused was anonymously in custody. The prosecutor feared that this way people could escape judicial punishment and that the state power structure could lose its control. The prosecutor added that he was in touch and exchange with the colleagues in Cologne.
The judge agreed with the defence and lowered the sentence to one month. Since Sara already had been sitting one month in prison, it was served in full and thus Sara could leave the court as a free woman.
Then one of the officials on the seats for the audience gets up and hands over to the judge a further paper, stating that there is an additional warrant. The warrant is neither read nor knows Sara, what she is accused of and why she must go back into prison again. The judge does not mention any reasons for this. The people in the courtroom do not know the reasons for the arrest, except for the judge and the police.
She is led away in handcuffs.
She was brought back to jail, but then she was released soon. Without getting any explanation for this strange behaviour. Her lawyer advised, to wait a certain time with any publications on this case, because until now even the lawyer does not know, if Sara is still wanted.
More at Lautonomia
Simultaneously, the first spectators go to the door. Plain-clothes police, justice officials and police officers prevent them from leaving the room. One of the spectators is detained and arrested. According to a civvie cop on site, there was a warrant for this person, who is known by the name “Huba” and is also active in the resistance against lignite in Rhenania (“Rhineland”). More on Huba’s case →
Currently Sara’s situation is very unclear and contradictory information is circulating. Solidary people and advocates are trying to find out her situation.
As soon as there is further reliable information, it will be put online.
More background info at: LAUtonomia
We call you for solidarity with the LAUtonomia occupation that currently is exposed to a variety of repression and harassment by the state! Support the local people at the occupation! Perform actions! Be creative!
Sara is the name she chose for this case, because she does not want to give her real name. So write to the “unknown person Sara”, at the following address: