Facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office of Basel-Landschaft is conducting a criminal investigation against X. on suspicion of theft and misuse of a data processing system. The accused initially appointed a requested private defense counsel, who had to relinquish the mandate due to lack of cost coverage. The accused then wished to have the previously requested defense counsel appointed as court-appointed defense counsel. However, the Public Prosecutor's Office appointed another lawyer as court-appointed defense counsel. The accused filed a complaint against this order.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court decided that the rejection of the accused's request for a specific court-appointed defense counsel can cause an irreparable legal disadvantage. This is the case if the accused's wish for a lawyer of their trust is not taken into account, and thus the risk of a violation of the accused's fundamental right to defense by a legal representative of their choice exists.
The Federal Supreme Court stated that according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the procedural management must, as far as possible, take into account the wishes of the accused when appointing the court-appointed defense counsel. Although there is no entitlement to a court-appointed defense counsel of one's own choice, there must be objective reasons if the procedural management does not comply with the accused's request.
In the present case, the Federal Supreme Court saw no objective reasons why the proposal of the accused to appoint the requested defense counsel as court-appointed defense counsel should not be followed. The…