Appeal against the decision of the Tyulkubassky District Court
To the Turkestan Regional Court
T. D. H.
Appeal against the decision of the Tyulkubassky District Court of December 12, 2023
On December 12, 2023, the Tyulkubassky District Court, having considered the case of an administrative offense against T. D. Kh., found T. D. Kh. guilty under part 1 of Article 610 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offenses and imposed an administrative fine of 69,000 tenge on him.
We consider this court order to be illegal and unjustified. During the consideration of the case, the court committed a gross violation of the current legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
In accordance with article 784 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan, "a judge, an authority (official) conducting proceedings on an administrative offence, evaluates evidence according to his inner conviction based on a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of evidence in its entirety, guided by the law and honor. No evidence has a pre-determined validity.
Each piece of evidence is subject to assessment in terms of affiliation, admissibility, and reliability, and all the evidence collected in its entirety is sufficient to resolve the case."
However, the court focused only on the evidence accusing T. D. Kh., and did not attach importance to the evidence proving T. D. kh.'s innocence, even distorting the testimony of those who took part in the court session, it was stated in the ruling.
Firstly, the court did not evaluate the testimony of witness Sh. S. A. The testimony of the only witness who saw the whole real situation from beginning to end, the court did not evaluate in any way.
Secondly, the victim S. B. S. stated at the first court hearing that "I was driving at a speed of 20 kilometers per hour, did not look out the rear window and did not see the car of T. D. H." And in the second court session, it was said: "I was driving at a speed of 50 kilometers per hour, looked out the rear window and saw T. D. H.'s car going far away." How can you trust the testimony of a man who hardly spoke there?
Thirdly, the court recognized the testimony of the police officers as evidence and recognized the basis of the decision. Despite the fact that the traffic policeman said, "We did not see the traffic accident happen," the court did not do so, distorting what they said and referring to it in the ruling as evidence.
Even if the police inspector indicated that G. N.N. had gone to the scene of a traffic accident, the second driver drew a diagram of the scene after examining the scene with the participation of T. D. H., then to the question of G. Saradzhnov's defender, "Do you support the drawn-up scheme?"- "Yes, I support it," although the court replied that "police inspector G. N. Nauanov visited the scene of a traffic accident, at the exit the driver S. B. S. was taken to the hospital, the diagram of the scene, according to the second driver T. D. H., examined the scene"writes out in the resolution.
Fourthly, witnesses A. K., Sh. A., police officer G. N., and D. Zh. denied the actions and, according to the court's ruling, only the driver S. S. turned out to be spotless and snow-white. How to understand this? S. S. did not check the evidence, and the court did not give him an assessment.
Then I got the opinion that Judge J. A. can be considered a supporter of the old Kazakhstan, is one of the judges who do not want to live in the new Kazakhstan, in a fair Kazakhstan.
In addition, according to the law, "overtaking is prohibited at unregulated intersections when driving on the main road that changes direction (except for overtaking from the permissible right side) and on a non-main road (except for overtaking at roundabouts, overtaking two-wheeled vehicles without trailers on the sides, and overtaking from the acceptable right side)". But, according to the case file, the testimony of witnesses T. D. Kh. and witnesses Sh. S. A., A. U. Kadirbekova, the Atyrau-Astarkhan highway, which has a traffic area, is considered the main road, and its route does not change. Therefore, overtaking is not prohibited. There is no sign forbidding overtaking on the road.
Giving a signal in subparagraph 8.47 of the traffic rules does not give the driver an advantage and does not exempt him from taking precautionary measures. In his written comment, the victim, S. B. S., did not say a word that the left turn maneuver was safe and did not interfere with other drivers. At some point, deciding to turn left, he turned right at that moment.
Therefore, the cause of a traffic accident is a gross violation of the requirements of the Rules of the road by the driver Sabieva S. B.
Based on the above,
To cancel the decision of the Tyulkubassky district court; The police questioned G. N. Zhasenov; I request the audio recording of the court session to re-hear the testimony of S. S.
12/20/2023 H. T. G.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
