Judgments|The security guard of the police station was accused of discrimination because he ordered the Romani woman in a loud voice. The charges were dismissed at two levels of court.
Romani skirt the woman who used it accused the security guard of the police department of discrimination because she was ordered to the tail of the queue. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the charges.
The encounter between a woman and a male security guard took place at the Helsinki Police Department in March 2021. At that time, due to the corona restrictions, only six people could do business at the police department at a time.
The guard had ordered the woman to the tail of the queue several times, because she had come to the police station’s airlock and did not follow the order of the queue.
Woman himself said he went in to ask if he could wait his turn indoors. An elderly woman used a walking stick to get around.
The woman and the guard had a disagreement about when it was the woman’s turn to do business. According to the woman, the guard had started ordering her in a loud and frightening manner.
The guard showed that he had a negative and arrogant attitude towards the Roma, the woman told the court.
Guard denied the charge. He did admit that he commanded the woman to be the last in line, but said that he did it because she was informed of his benefits. According to the guard, the woman’s background had nothing to do with the matter.
The two witnesses heard in court had different views of the events.
According to another person waiting in line, the situation was calm until the guard came and shouted aggressively at the woman. The witness said that the woman had entered the queue before the witness, but she had still been ordered to be the last in the queue.
On the other hand, a witness who worked at the police station said that the guard had not raised his voice and that the woman herself had disturbed others with her behavior.
Equality Commissioner stated in his statement that on the basis of the preliminary investigation material and video camera recording, a clear presumption of discrimination arises on the basis of ethnic origin, perhaps also the woman’s gender and disability.
The woman demanded from the guard and the Helsinki Police Department 3,000 euros in compensation for mental suffering and 4,000 euros in compensation according to the Equality Act. The woman also demanded that the guard pay her court costs.
District court according to the report, the woman’s account was detailed and consistent, and the woman’s experience of discrimination was also supported by the witness’s view that the guard behaved racistly.
According to the district court, the video recording also supported the prosecution. However, there was no sound on the video recording, so according to the court, it was not possible to make certain observations about the tone of voice. However, the court considered that the video showed that some people in the queue accused the woman of being ahead of the queue.
According to the court, it was not shown that the guard had put the woman in a disadvantageous position compared to the others, because the woman had been treated like all the front-runners: Ordered to be the last in line.
Helsinki the district court dismissed the charges of discrimination and breach of duty against the security guard born in 1984.
Both the prosecutor and the woman appealed the sentence to the Court of Appeal. However, the Helsinki Court of Appeal came to the same conclusion as the district court.
#Judgments #security #guard #Helsinki #police #station #nervous #womans #scolding #charged #discrimination
