Facts
The appellant [A.] was convicted by the Regional Court of Berner Jura-Seeland for animal cruelty by omission of proper hoof care for a sheep. The High Court of the Canton of Bern upheld the judgment. [A.] filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
In the criminal order of the public prosecutor's office, [A.] was accused of not having regularly and properly cared for the hooves of his sheep, which led to a disease of the hooves of one sheep, which became inflamed and infested with maggots, so that the sheep had to be slaughtered due to its suffering.
The Federal Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the case for a new decision to the lower court. It justified this by stating that the lower court had modified the charged facts in essential points and convicted the appellant on the basis of different facts, without an amendment of the indictment pursuant to Art. 333 para. 1 CrimPC having taken place. This violated the principle of accusation.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court stated that the criminal order must be considered as an indictment and that the presentation of the facts therein must meet the requirements of an indictment. This includes in particular a precise description of the objective elements of the offense as well as the subjective side of the offense (intent or negligence).
In the present case, the criminal order lacked information as to whether the…