Facts

The Police Court of the Lausanne district convicted the appellant, by judgment of 9 April 2014, for minor theft (art. 139 with 172ter SCC), damage to property and insult and violence or threats against authorities and officials (art. 285 para. 1 SCC and 177 SCC). He was sentenced to a fine of 120 day-fines at 30 francs per day, as well as a fine of 300 francs with a substitute custodial sentence of 3 days. The court also awarded civil claims to several parties, including A. SA and E. SA, for a total amount of 10,358.00 francs.

The Criminal Appeals Court of the Vaud Cantonal Tribunal overturned this judgment by ruling of 11 August 2014. It acquitted the appellant of the charge of damage to property in connection with A. SA’s complaint, which was deemed late, but confirmed the conviction for minor theft, insult and violence or threats against authorities. It also confirmed the award of civil claims to A. SA.

The facts established by the Appeals Court are as follows

  • On 1 August 2012 in Lausanne, the appellant violently resisted a body search ordered by railway police officers, necessitating his apprehension and restraint. He insulted and threatened the officers, vowing revenge.
  • On 3 September 2012 in Lausanne, the appellant stole food and a drink worth a total of 21.20 francs from a store, before putting the items back after being caught by a security guard.
  • In February 2013, the appellant sprayed graffiti on several buildings, including those managed by A. SA and E. SA.

The appellant filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Court against this ruling, seeking full acquittal and the dismissal of E. SA’s civil claims, as well as the conviction of A. SA and the Vaud Public Prosecutor’s Office to pay him compensation of 5,266.46 francs under art. 429 para. 1 lit. a CrimPC.

Considerations

The Federal Court examined three main grounds raised by the appellant: the legality of the security search, the qualification of the minor theft, and the award of civil claims.

1. Legality of the security search and conviction for violence against authorities

The appellant contested the legality of the security search to which he had resisted, arguing the absence of suspicion and the illegality of the measure. The Federal Court recalled that, pursuant to art. 241 para. 4 CrimPC, the police may conduct a security search on a person who has been apprehended or arrested, in particular to ensure the safety of persons. Apprehension within the meaning of art. 215 CrimPC does not necessarily presuppose a suspicion of an offence, and the search was not manifestly unlawful. Consequently, the appellant’s resistance, accompanied by violence, constituted an offence under art. 285 para. 1 SCC. Art. 177 para. 2 SCC, invoked by the appellant to justify the absence of punishment for the insult, was inapplicable, as the officers’ conduct was not reprehensible.

2. Impunity for attempted minor theft

The appellant contested his conviction for minor theft, arguing that the facts were not established or that the attempt was not punishable. The Federal Court recalled that minor theft (art. 172ter SCC) is a contravention, and that an attempt is only punishable if the law expressly so provides (art. 105 para. 2 SCC). In this case, the value of the goods involved…