Jugement Kantonsgericht (VD - Entscheid/2020/269)

Canton:	VD
Case number:	Entscheid/2020/269

Instance:	Kantonsgericht
Department:	Chambre des recours pénale

Kantonsgericht Entscheid Entscheid/2020/269 vom 08.04.2020 (VD)

Date:	08.04.2020
Force of law:	-

Summary:	X.________, an in [...] born man, is imprisoned in the Etablissements de la plaine de lOrbe. He is serving a prison sentence of 30 months. X.________ has appealed against an order of the criminal execution judge dated March 25, 2020. This order had prohibited him from authorizing a visit to his family. The Chambre des recours pénale has approved the appointment. She decided that X.________ has the right to visit his family. The Board found that the order of the executing judge was disproportionate. She judged that X.________ has the right to see his family in order to promote his social integration. The Chamber has revoked the order of the executing judge and granted X.________ permission to visit his family. More detailed summary: X.________ is imprisoned in the Etablissements de la plaine de lOrbe to serve a prison sentence of 30 months. He has appealed against an order of the executing judge dated March 25, 2020. This order had prohibited him from authorizing a visit to his family. The Chambre des recours pénale has approved the appointment. She decided that X.________ has the right to visit his family. The Board found that the order of the executing judge was disproportionate. She judged that X.________ has the right to see his family in order to promote his social integration. The Chamber has revoked the order of the executing judge and granted X.________ permission to visit his family. The visit may last a maximum of four hours and must take place under the supervision of a law enforcement officer. More details: X.________ is a married man with two children. His family lives in [...]. The executing judge had prohibited the approval of the visit because X.________ had already violated the conditions of probation assistance in the past. The Chambre des recours pénale has decided that the involvement of X.________s in criminal activities is not a sufficient reason for refusing to visit. She judged that the family visit is important for X.________ in order to promote his social integration.
Rule of Law:	Art. 100 LTF;Art. 115 CPP;Art. 382 CPP;Art. 385 CPP;Art. 392 CPP;Art. 396 CPP;Art. 422 CPP;Art. 428 CPP;
BGE reference::	-
Comment:	-

Please note that there is no claim to topicality/accuracy/format and/or completeness and that therefore any guarantee is excluded. Original decisions may be ordered or made on the basis of the competent court.

Click here to return to the page search engine.