Facts
On 1 September 2013 around 3:00 a.m., the accused X. was driving on the Monts-de-Lavaux road at Croix-sur-Lutry. He refused to stop following a police check and fled. A high-speed chase ensued, during which X. violated numerous traffic rules: failing to comply with stop orders, crossing “stop” and “give way” signs, driving against traffic in several roundabouts, speeding (up to 100 km/h in a 50 km/h zone), running red lights, and dangerous overtaking. Around 3:55 a.m., the chase intensified in Lausanne, where X. ran a red light at 180 km/h, performed reckless overtakes, and forced other road users into evasive manoeuvres. He ultimately collided with a police car blocking his path, then fled on foot before being caught.
By judgment of 12 February 2015, the Criminal Court of the Lausanne district found X. guilty of endangering life (art. 129 SCC), driving without a licence, and serious qualified violation of traffic rules (art. 90 para. 3 RTA). He was sentenced to 35 months’ imprisonment, with deduction of 90 days’ pre-trial detention, partial suspension (11 months to be served, 24 months suspended for 5 years), and a fine of 1,000 francs. The court also ordered a reduction of 8 days’ detention to compensate for moral harm suffered due to unlawful detention conditions.
The Criminal Appeals Court of the Vaud Cantonal Tribunal upheld this judgment on 11 June 2015.
X. filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking acquittal for endangering life, a reduction of his sentence, and the annulment of the 8-day detention reduction. He also requested financial compensation of 1,600 francs from the Canton of Vaud, alternatively the annulment of the cantonal judgment and referral of the case for a new decision.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examined the issue of compensation for X.’s unlawful detention, particularly due to detention conditions contrary to constitutional and conventional guarantees. Under art. 431 para. 1 CrimPC, the criminal authority must grant compensation and repair the moral harm suffered by the accused in cases of unlawful detention. Case law acknowledges that this reparation may take various forms, including a declaratory decision, financial compensation, or a sentence reduction, depending on the circumstances.
The appellant contested the cantonal court’s choice to compensate unlawful detention through a sentence reduction, whereas he had requested financial compensation. The Federal Supreme Court reiterated that the choice of the method and extent of reparation falls within the judge’s discretionary power, subject to a review for arbitrariness. It emphasised that the general provisions of the Code of Obligations (arts. 41 et seq. CO) may guide the judge’s assessment, but the judge is not bound by the party’s submissions.…