Nico Schulz: Court explanation regarding potential Sheffield Wednesday signing

The 30-year-old defender, who was training with the Owls recently, had been charged with three counts of grievous bodily harm against a former partner, but on Wednesday it was confirmed that the case would be closed once he had paid a six-figure sum to charitable organisations.

A court spokesperson in Dortmund, Michael Tebbe, was asked questions by the German media after the decision had been taken, and he gave some further details on money paid to the alleged victim by Schulz, and her decision not to give information in court.

“We expected to be taking evidence today in the form of what I'd call the main witness,” he said, as translated by Peter Løhmann. “She invoked her right to refuse to give information, which the court followed, and then said the witness had invoked a right to refuse to give information and thus it was no longer possible to proceed with taking evidence. That is also the reason that, with that in mind, we could not reach a verdict – but instead made a different decision. The trial was discontinued.

“For Mr Schulz it means criminal proceedings were carried out against him - now temporarily suspended - and he has to pay a monetary sanction of €150,000. If he manages that within the deadline of three months set by the court then the trial will be ended permanently.

“He was defendant of three counts of grievous bodily harm to the detriment of his former partner. That was the accusation that we were to hear as a court.”

Meanwhile, when asked what role the payment of ‘compensation’ to the witness played in the decision, he said, “That was the case, that was also officially the case. The criminal code provides a so-called Culprit Victim Compensation - that had been carried through between the defendant and the witness.

“A sum of money has been paid and the criminal code and penal code respectively say that when such a Culprit Victim Compensation is carried out it provides the court with the option to lessen the punishment in its verdict or even to abstain from a verdict entirely.”

Follow the latest from the Owls with the The Star’s free football emails

Tebbe was also questioned on why the witness refused to give information, to which he replied, “That is due to the fact there's still a possibility she could incriminate herself if she gave a testimony today. That is, in other words, the possibility that she didn't say the full truth in the testimony given…

“Those testimonies could not be adjudged in court proceedings today. The criminal code of procedure includes the so-called immediacy principle. That means the questioning of witnesses has to happen during the main hearing. The testimonies of witnesses generally happens during the main hearing and, as a court, you can't, without further ado, go back and use testimonies that were made within the preliminary investigation.

“The accusations were for three counts of grievous bodily harm. Such accusations have prison sentences that go from six months up to ten years - that's the range of sentences for Grievous Bodily Harm. But the court quite clearly decided that, after the witness invoked her right to refuse to give information, it was quite conceivable that they could no longer give a verdict on grievous bodily harm.

“A verdict on 'less severe' bodily harm, Actual Bodily Harm, which carries a lower level of sentencing than Grievous Bodily Harm, and the court then said, in view of the Culprit Victim Compensation that had been done, that the legal procedure can then be suspended, because the guilt that remains after the Culprit Victim Compensation doesn't preclude such a suspension.

“The defendant has a very clear knowledge of what happened in his relationship. But the rest of us can't give a verdict on that, because there aren't any testimonies and he also didn't provide any information…

“The defendant did not say anything… He relied on his lawyer and also had, I believe, confirmed to his lawyer what had happened with the process, what had happened with the Culprit Victim Compensation. He confirmed that. He did not respond to the actual accusations of acts, that is correct.”