Facts
Parties: Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Solothurn (appellant) against [A.] (respondent).
Subject: Offenses against the Weapons Act, arbitrariness, appeal against the judgment of the Higher Court of the Canton of Solothurn, Criminal Chamber, of April 20, 2015.
Facts:
- [A.] was convicted by penal order of July 15, 2013, for an offense against the Weapons Act. He had acquired 13 pistols without having the required weapons acquisition permit.
- The Thal-Gäu court cleared [A.] of the charge. The Public Prosecutor's Office filed an appeal, and the Higher Court confirmed the acquittal.
- The Public Prosecutor's Office filed an appeal in criminal matters, requesting the annulment of the judgment and the referral of the case for re-evaluation.
Considerations:
- The lower court considered the written statement of [B. AG] to be inadmissible, as the respondent's participation rights were violated and no instruction on rights and obligations was given.
- The lower court refrained from further evidence gathering, assuming that the employees of [B. AG] could no longer provide relevant information after three years.
- The appellant objected to the evaluation of the delivery note and the letter of the police commander, as well as the anticipated evidence evaluation.
Considerations
1. Written reports and participation rights:
Pursuant to Art. 145 CrimPC, the criminal authority may invite a person to be heard to submit a written report. The parties have the right to be present during evidence gathering and to ask questions (Art. 147 CrimPC). The lower court considered the written statement of [B. AG] to be inadmissible, as the respondent's participation rights were violated and no instruction on rights and obligations was given. This is correct, as the obtaining of a written report must not restrict the rights of the parties.
2. Anticipated evidence evaluation:
…