I have finally been acquitted of several criminal charges brought against me by the police on the basis of dubious speculation. The acquittal ruling states:

“(…) the court finds that no evidence was presented that would lead to the identification of the perpetrator, and thus to the proof of the defendant’s guilt. The defendant’s guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by Section 2(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. These doubts are fundamental, logical, and insurmountable, as the expert opinions confirmed that the perpetrator cannot be identified by any scientific method.”

What made this court case unusual was that the prosecutor tried to use my book “Tato kniha není (z)boží” (This Book Is Not a Commodity) against me However, the court ultimately ruled that this book does not constitute evidence.

The JUDGMENT IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC states:

“During the presentation of evidence, it became apparent that some of the materials included in the criminal case file by the police, the prosecutor, and subsequently the appellate court are clearly unrelated to the offense in question or to the identity of the defendant. This concerns, in particular, certain publications, ideological texts, or other documents whose only common feature is that they could be linked to the defendant and his views. However, according to the trial court, these materials are not criminally relevant. They do not prove any specific intent, any connection to the act committed, nor do they relate to the objective aspect of the act under consideration. Their content is merely of a general political or critical nature, is not directed at any specific individual, and has no connection to the proceedings at hand. The court therefore finds that the aforementioned materials in the case file have no place in the evidentiary proceedings within these criminal proceedings. They are not forensic evidence, they are not circumstantial evidence, and they cannot serve as supporting arguments for inferring the perpetrator’s ideological profile. As the Constitutional Court has repeatedly ruled, criminal proceedings are not a tool for assessing an individual’s personality traits or political views, and such materials certainly cannot serve as a basis for a finding of guilt or a decision on guilt.”

An ideological profile is not a forensic clue

It appears that the judge did indeed carefully review the book’s contents and my views, which is why IN THE JUDGMENT IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC he was able to state:

“The court further considers it necessary to emphasize that the defendant’s ideological views, however nonconformist, controversial, or even bordering on extremist, are not and cannot be evidence that he committed the acts in question. An ideological profile is not a forensic clue and cannot substitute for evidence of the perpetrator’s identity. An approach that would allow for the assumption that a person with certain political or social views is likely the perpetrator of a specific crime would be contrary to the principle of the presumption of innocence and to the prohibition against forming a judgment of guilt based on a person’s character. The Constitutional Court’s rulings repeatedly emphasize that it is not possible to punish a person for their beliefs or to use them as a substitute for evidence in criminal proceedings.”

And so another court case came to an end in which the police harassed me and my friends, only for the court to ultimately conclude that the perpetrator had not been identified. I had been dragged through the courts yet again, only to walk away with an acquittal. And because—as the judge said—my views are “nonconformist, controversial, or even bordering on extreme,” I want to emphasize that I do not consider this “acquittal” to be a confirmation of the alleged legitimacy and independence of the courts. I was simply lucky. I also know that others were not so lucky and were swallowed up by prison. The institution of the court is an integral part of the system I oppose. And even if judges sometimes rule seemingly justly, it does not change the fact that the historical role of the courts is primarily to protect class rule and the status quo. State justice, at its core, is not a matter of justice at all, but a matter of maintaining a socially unjust system. That is precisely why people like me so often find themselves in court. It is a logical consequence of our rebellious stance.

Lukáš Borl – March 2026