Appellant v. Accused (Unlawful Deprivation of Liberty by False Information)

The appellant alleged that the accused committed unlawful deprivation of liberty by means of indirect perpetration, having intentionally misled a foreign public prosecutor with false information regarding the appellant's residence to secure an arrest warrant and subsequent detention. The court upheld the decision to discontinue the investigation because, based on the appellant's own account, the accused lacked access to the property and thus could not have known the information they provided was false, meaning the requisite intent—acting knowingly against better judgment—for criminal liability under the statute for unlawful deprivation of liberty was not established.