[ad_1]
The Constitutional Court adopted the norm of the Private Security Act, which prohibited persons convicted of an intentional crime from working in the sector since 2013.
The declaration of unconstitutionality intervenes at the Ombudsman's request,
In the judgment of the successive abstract supervision of the legislation, read by the TSF, the judges say that Article 22 is even unconstitutional, obliging the members to revise the law.
] The problem is the issuance by police authorities of a vigilance card to a person found guilty of an intentional crime. A prohibition to work in the field that extended to administrators, managers, directors or trainers in the field of private security.
admits exceptions in the name of the collective interest. The problem is that the law on private security is too rigid, does not admit exceptions, does not take into account the possibility of reintegration of convicted persons or if the crimes in question are minor or committed there. has decades, which was not the case until 2013.
Judges perceive their intention to protect a sensitive profession, but argue that the rule is disproportionate because it includes "A relevant number of situations the offense of which does not justify an absolute and definitive judgment on the ability" to work Listen to the explanation of the judgment by the journalist Nuno Guedes and Rogério Alves's answers [19659007] The Court gives the example of who committed a fiscal crime or violation of urban planning rules, despite the zero relationship between these crimes and the protection of personal security.
Members should, as they have done in the past, distinguish between different types of crime,
Rogério Alves, lawyer, former barrister and President of The Business Association It understands the reasons why judges have adopted this private security rule by giving an example: "It makes no sense to prevent someone from working in this area only because 20 years ago insulted another person in traffic or in a municipal assembly …
The jurist admits that before this decision of the Constitutional Court, with binding force and general the rule has no effect and will have to be considered urgently in the Assembly of the Republic
Until then, admits Rogério Alves. police officers who assign a vigilance card can not refuse it on the basis of the condemnation rule written in the Private Security Act, only if the plaintiff has an ancillary sentence that forbids it, exp
Lawyer explains that "what applies generically to the universe of already convicted people ceases to apply, and it will be more difficult for the police who use the license and the" 39, private security accreditation to use this fact, by non-compliance with the Constitution. "
[ad_2]
Source link
