Detention due to the risk of recidivism

Facts

The case concerns X., who has been in pre-trial detention since 15 July 2010 due to criminal proceedings for a qualified violation of the Narcotics Act. On 29 September 2010, the Special Investigating Magistrate's Office of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft applied for an extension of the pre-trial detention by six months. On 7 October 2010, the President of the Criminal Court of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft granted the application and extended the pre-trial detention until 7 April 2011. On 3 November 2010, X. filed a complaint with the SCC, which dismissed it on 23 November 2010. In view of the entry into force of the CrimPC on 1 January 2011, the Public Prosecutor's Office of Basel-Landschaft applied to the Coercive Measures Court of Basel-Landschaft on 30 December 2010 for the confirmation or, alternatively, a new order of pre-trial detention against X. until 7 April 2011. On 14 January 2011, the Coercive Measures Court decided that the pre-trial detention extended by the decision of 7 October 2010 until 7 April 2011 complies with the provisions of the CrimPC. X. filed a complaint against this decision with the Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft on 20 January 2011. On 28 February 2011, the Cantonal Court dismissed the complaint and confirmed the decision of the Coercive Measures Court of 14 January 2011. X. then filed a criminal law appeal with the SCC on 21 March 2011, requesting that the decision of the Cantonal Court of 28 February 2011 be overturned and that his immediate release from pre-trial detention be ordered.

Considerations

The SCC first examines the legal requirements for detention due to the risk of recidivism under Art. 221 para. 1 lit. c CrimPC. The purpose of ordering detention due to the risk of repetition or continuation is primarily preventive, in order to prevent the accused from committing further offences. The ground for detention due to the risk of repetition is to be applied restrictively. Art. 221 para. 1 lit. c CrimPC requires a serious apprehension that the accused will seriously endanger the safety of others through "felonies or misdemeanours" after committing similar offences. The German and Italian versions of the provision are considered erroneous, as they do not cover "less serious" offences punishable by higher penalties than infractions. Based on the French wording, the provision must be interpreted as requiring the endangerment of…