Facts
In this case, the Cantonal Court of Valais rendered a judgment on 4 March 2022 in which it imposed a suspended sentence of 24 months' imprisonment, a fine of 150 daily penalty units at CHF 140, and a fine of CHF 4,200 on A. for various offences. The Prosecutor of the Canton of Valais appealed against this judgment, requesting that the sentence be increased.
The Federal Tribunal upheld the appeal. It found that the Cantonal Court had violated Art. 195 para. 2 CrimPC by failing to obtain an updated criminal record extract concerning A. at the time of rendering its judgment. The Cantonal Court had in fact based itself on a criminal record extract dating back more than 8 months to conclude that A. had not committed any further offences since October 2017, whereas in reality, he had been convicted by a criminal order on 6 November 2021 for acts committed on 21 July 2021.
Considerations
According to the case law of the Federal Tribunal, the criminal authorities must ex officio clarify all the facts relevant for the assessment of the offence and the accused person (Art. 6 para. 1 CrimPC). To establish the personal situation of the accused, the public prosecutor's office and the courts must obtain information on the accused's criminal record and reputation (Art. 195 para. 2 CrimPC).
In the present case, the Cantonal Court should have obtained an updated criminal record extract before rendering its judgment, since the question of the…