Violence against people with disabilities: perpetrator confesses, case closed

It happened in the summer and fall of 2020. Her supervisor kissed her against her will and stroked her legs and buttocks, reports Sonja M. At the time, the young woman was employed in a workshop for people with disabilities. In October 2020, she filed a complaint with her mother. The main hearing will finally take place at the Berlin-Tiergarten district court on August 31, 2026. It took six years for the case to reach a legal conclusion. How can that be?

Sonja M. has been diagnosed with mild to moderate intellectual disability. Your case is not an isolated one. According to a study by the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, women with disabilities are particularly often affected by sexual violence - especially if they work in an institution for people with disabilities.

The independent federal commission for dealing with child sexual abuse wants to reach more people with disabilities who experienced sexual violence in their childhood or youth. With a campaign launched on Monday, she wants to address those affected directly. The commission wants to investigate what circumstances and structures led to the violence and its concealment - and how clarification is prevented. The case of Sonja M. highlights many problems.

Prosecuting sexual crimes is already difficult. “This increases when several characteristics of discrimination overlap for an injured person,” says lawyer Ronska Grimm to the taz. In these cases, statement is often pitted against statement. The statement of those affected then has great importance in court. However, Sonja M. was denied the ability to provide evidence.

The public prosecutor's office commissioned a report in which the expert Sonja M. attested to "emotional instability". During the interview she began to cry and said she couldn't take it anymore. “My client was examined for hours without a sufficient break,” says Grimm, upset.

“The entire setting was extremely discriminatory,” says Grimm. Sonja M. was asked questions and had to complete tests tailored to small children. For example, she had to pick out all the red ones from a bunch of colored pencils. This “discriminatory task” continued throughout the assessment. "My client is an adult. Even with diagnoses such as mild intellectual disability, adults have the right to be treated as such," emphasizes Grimm. But she was treated as if she were five years old.

Such reports are prepared by qualified psychologists. But whether they have disability-specific knowledge depends on chance. In the case of Sonja M., the expert was obviously missing the point. She denied the young woman's ability to testify in court. The Berlin public prosecutor followed this and stopped the investigation. Grimm also complains that the public prosecutor's office lacks human resources and specialist knowledge. Whether a case of sexual violence against people with disabilities ends up in court seems to depend primarily on luck.

At that time, Ronska Grimm lodged an unsuccessful complaint with the public prosecutor's office, and an enforcement action at the Berlin Court of Appeal was also unsuccessful. The only verdict of the constitutional state at this point: Sonja M.'s voice has no weight. "This is a very basic human right. She was deprived of the fact that her word counts in any way. We couldn't leave it like that," says Grimm.

This was followed by a constitutional complaint with the Berlin Constitutional Court. In June 2024, he came to the conclusion that Sonja M.'s fundamental right to effective legal protection had been violated and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal. A first success. Around four years had passed since the announcement. It would take another two years until the trial. “Due to the failure of justice, the injured person was unable to come to terms with the trauma for six years.”

On August 31st of this year, Sonja M.'s case was finally heard at the Berlin-Tiergarten district court. The hearing ended with the proceedings being discontinued. In general, the duration of the proceedings must be taken into account in mitigating the punishment. The accused only had to pay a fine to Sonja M. The taz was able to view the relevant court decision.

What was crucial for Grimm's client was that the defendant confessed to the attacks. “For her it is a success that he has fully admitted the crimes and that she is no longer seen as a liar,” says Grimm. The most important thing for M. was that her voice had the same weight as that of people without disabilities.

Lawyers Ronska Grimm and Sonja M. were able to achieve some successes in the six years of fighting the Berlin justice system that will have an impact beyond the case. For example, Grimm was able to obtain a ruling that Sonja M. could only be questioned by the judge in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. She was also questioned by the judge in a separate room. The other participants in the proceedings were only connected via video.

Nevertheless, Grimm left the trial with mixed feelings. The attitude against the imposition of money is “better than nothing”, but at the same time it is also a “disappointing result”. The defendant was not convicted. There were good reasons for this, “Because he deliberately abused his power as a superior and because the protection of people in workshops from sexual violence must be taken seriously,” says Grimm.

In proceedings involving people with disabilities, the same limits are repeatedly encountered. This begins with the police interrogation. A hearing form is often sent out that does not meet the needs of people with disabilities. Because you may need help filling it out. But, Grimm makes it clear: such statements are generally not usable in court. Then it is basically clear: "The procedure is for the trash. This will never lead to a conviction."

Grimm was able to intervene in Sonja M.'s case in good time and reminded the police that the interrogation must take place on site and be recorded on video. Those affected or their relatives often do not know this.

Grimm describes the fact that Sonja M.'s proceedings were stopped at the last few meters as “classic”. In order for a main case to be discontinued, the public prosecutor's office, the court and the defendant must agree. The injured person's wishes do not have to be taken into account. Grimm was unable to prevent the setting. “It leaves a stale feeling behind.”