No claim to necessary defense in case of impending fine and penalty

Facts

Parties: Appellant A. against Public Prosecutor's Office See/Oberland

Court: Federal Supreme Court, I. Public Law Division

Date: April 3, 2017

Facts: A. is charged with gross violation of traffic regulations and threat. The Public Prosecutor's Office applies for a fine of 50 daily rates of CHF 100.- and a penalty of CHF 1,000.-. A. applies for the appointment of official defense, which is rejected. He files an appeal.

Considerations

The appellant complains of a violation of Art. 6 para. 3 lit. c and Art. 6 para. 1 ECHR as well as Art. 29 para. 3, Art. 31 para. 2 and Art. 32 para. 2 Cst. He argues that necessary defense should have been appointed for him. The Federal Supreme Court finds that neither Art. 29 para. 3 Cst. nor Art. 6 para. 3 lit. c ECHR establish a claim to necessary defense. However, it may be necessary from the point of view of fairness and the duty of investigation and care that the criminal authority ensures ex officio that necessary defense is provided.

The Federal Supreme Court examines whether there is a statutory claim to necessary defense. This is particularly the case if the accused faces a prison sentence of more than one year or a measure depriving him of his liberty (Art. 130 lit. b CrimPC) or if he cannot adequately safeguard his procedural interests (Art. 130 lit. c CrimPC). The Federal Supreme Court concludes that these conditions are not met, as the appellant does not face a prison sentence of more than one year and there are no indications of physical or mental impairment.

The appellant argues that the appointment of official defense is…