Four police officers are standing trial at Luxembourg City court over an incident that took place at the former Luxembourg-Gare police station on 20 May 2023. Some of the officers are also linked to a separate incident at the same station on 18 May 2023.
On the third day of the trial, the four defendants gave evidence, with differing versions of events emerging in court.
The presiding judge remarked several times during the proceedings that he believed the young police officer who testified on Wednesday had told the truth. According to that testimony, the main defendant punched the man in the face while he was in a cell, as he believed he still had a score to settle with him.
Two months before the incident, the officer had allegedly been threatened by the man during an intervention. The police officer had later sent an email to several colleagues, including a photo of the eventual victim, saying that “war had been declared”.
“I had no score to settle”, the defendant insisted again on Thursday. However, he was unable to give a clear explanation as to why he had gone to the man’s cell that evening. He maintains that he struck the victim only once with the palm of his hand. “I simply reacted to an attack, it was not my intention to injure anyone”, the officer said.
One of the co-defendants, who was present, supported this version. He said the main defendant had entered the cell, where he was greeted by the victim with the words “you’re finally here” in French. An argument followed, and the man in the cell then allegedly moved towards the officer.
At that point, his colleague struck him three times in the face with an open hand and once more to the ribs, causing him to fall, first onto a bench, then to the floor. The man was left with a swollen eye and a broken nose, and the observation cell was covered in blood. “When I saw the blood, I left immediately. I can’t stand the sight of blood”, the defendant said.
However, the young officer who testified on Wednesday described a different sequence of events. He said he had been sent outside the office door and overheard the main defendant telling the victim: “Come on, dance with me, defend yourself, otherwise it’s no fun.”
He then heard blows and the victim groaning. The presiding judge appeared to lend significantly more credibility to this account, noting: “We are used to defendants presenting events in a way that suits them. We are not used to a police officer doing so.”
Another person was also present in the small office with the observation cell at the time. “You haven’t said much so far, and I get the impression this doesn’t affect you greatly,” the judge remarked. The now 32-year-old claimed he had noticed nothing, saying he had simply been sitting there playing on his phone. Initially, he had incorrectly stated that he had been working on a computer and had therefore seen nothing.
Several young officers overwhelmed due to staff shortages
The officer who had been the most senior on duty at the time, then aged 35 with 11 years of experience at the station, also gave evidence. He said he had advised the young officer on how to draft the report of the arrest after it had not been accepted by the review office.
The defendant explained that he had quickly formed a scenario in his mind when the young officer came to him with the report, assuming there may have been resistance.
“If that had been the case, it wouldn’t have been worth adding anything afterwards. Unfortunately, we often wrote reports about insults, threats or resistance where little or nothing came of it”, he said.
He added that he had not been able to imagine events unfolding as described by the young officer. “It was never my intention to cover anything up. I just wanted things to be clarified”, he concluded.
Difficult working conditions were again discussed on the third day of the trial, with officers saying they felt politically unsupported. “At the time, we had 18 very young officers to supervise who had no real experience”, the senior officer said.
He added that when the main defendant was on shift, he was reassured that things would run smoothly. At 33 years old with eight years of service, he had been the most experienced officer present that evening. The officer described the situation at the station as something “an ordinary person could not imagine”, adding that on that day “it was simply chaos again”.
“I understand that the station takes its toll. The job we do takes its toll. But when it reaches this point, something has to change,” the judge said. He also asked the officers how they saw their future, with most saying they hoped to return to the police. Only one said he could not imagine going back into operational duties. The main defendant also stressed that he did not agree with the way the young colleague who had drafted the report was being treated, noting that the latter had said he still faced insults from other officers because of the case.
Once again, numerous inconsistencies emerged during the hearing. What is clear is that at least some of the defendants and/or witnesses did not tell the truth. The judge brought the session to a close, saying: “I’ve had enough.”
