Continued detention after the pronouncement of the appeal judgment

Facts

In this case, the Criminal Court of the Canton of Geneva sentenced X. to ten months of deprivation of liberty for theft in a group and illegal stay. The court ordered continued detention for reasons of public safety. Subsequently, the Criminal Appeals and Review Chamber of the Canton of Geneva (CPAR) granted the Public Prosecutor's appeal and revoked the conditional release granted in September 2012, setting the overall sentence at two years and six months. This judgment did not rule on the continued detention.

After the expiration of the sentence at first instance, the Public Prosecutor approached the President of the CPAR to request continued detention. The President then ordered continued detention for reasons of public safety, considering that the CPAR was competent to rule on this issue after the pronouncement of the appeal judgment.

X. appealed against this decision of continued detention to the Federal Tribunal.

Considerations

The Federal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It considered that the CPAR was indeed competent to rule on the continued detention after the pronouncement of the appeal judgment, in application of Articles 231 to 233 of the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

Indeed, the appellate court must rule on detention at the time of…