The trial concerning the Tempe rail disaster began today with the court appointing three defence lawyers for one of the 36 accused. During last Wednesday’s hearing at the Three-Member Court of Appeals for Felonies in Larissa, the defendant informed the court that, due to financial hardship, he could no longer afford his current lawyer and formally requested state-appointed legal representation.
Court Prioritises Speed and Fairness
In response, the presiding judge of the court appointed three lawyers today — a move she explicitly linked to accelerating the judicial process. After the defendant accepted the appointments, the newly assigned attorneys confirmed their willingness to represent him and stated they would begin their duties once they had reviewed the case file. Following this, the court adjourned the hearing until tomorrow to allow the lawyers time to familiarise themselves with the documents.
Concerns Over Delays and Procedural Integrity
During today’s session, concerns were raised about the trial’s pace and the length of the adjournment. ‘The court does not want nullities — but neither does it want delays,’ the presiding judge stressed.
Meanwhile, formal submissions from prosecutors’ and defendants’ legal teams regarding the prosecutor’s proposal remain pending. These include requests to upgrade certain charges — such as changing the homicide charge from negligence to possible intent — to add new witnesses, and to expand liability for the felony of disrupting transport safety to two Hellenic Train executives currently charged only with misdemeanours.
The prosecutor has reserved the right to pursue these changes after the evidentiary phase begins. She noted, among other things, that criminal charges cannot be brought for acts on which the accused have not been formally questioned during the main investigative stage. Similarly, she reserved the right to call additional witnesses and submit new documents once the evidentiary proceedings commence.
However, the prosecutor recommended rejecting several other defence motions — including requests to supplement the investigation, annul the indictment order, or dismiss the case under Article 324 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.