Facts

Parties and instances:

The Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Canton of Schaffhausen (prosecuting authority) accuses the complainant A. of having, on 24 July 2017, in the premises of B. Insurance in Schaffhausen, seriously injured two employees (D. and E.) with a chainsaw. A. was diagnosed with a severe chronic paranoid-hallucinatory schizophrenia by a forensic psychiatric expert report dated 15 February 2018, on account of which he was classified as not criminally responsible.

Statement of facts:

Following a failed attempt to obtain insurance benefits after a traffic accident (2008), A. contacted B. Insurance again in July 2017 to claim benefits under a holiday and travel baggage insurance. The insurance company rejected the claims due to unpaid premiums. A. subsequently developed paranoid delusions, in particular the belief that employees of the insurance company were attacking him with "spiritual forces". These delusions culminated on the evening of 23 July 2017 in the conviction that he was about to die.

On the following morning (24 July 2017, approx. 9:00 a.m.), A. went to Schaffhausen railway station with a chainsaw and drove to the branch of B. Insurance. He entered the office premises on the 2nd floor with the chainsaw running. He first attacked D., an employee of the insurance company, and seriously injured him. When E., another employee, opened the door, A. also attacked him with the chainsaw, seriously injuring him as well, and pursued him into a "dead end". Both victims were eventually able to take refuge in a shop in the same building. A. then fled to the railway station and drove to V., where he was arrested the next day. At the time of his arrest, he was carrying two loaded crossbows out of fear of alleged human traffickers.

Procedural history:

  • 11 September 2019: The Cantonal Court of Schaffhausen established the facts of the indictment and convicted A. of multiple attempted intentional homicide in a state of not self-inflicted lack of criminal responsibility (Article 111 in conjunction with Article 22(1) SCC). It ordered a compulsory therapeutic measure under Article 59 SCC.
  • 26 May 2020: The Higher Court of the Canton of Schaffhausen dismissed A.’s appeal.
  • 13 April 2021: The Federal Supreme Court dismissed A.’s appeal and confirmed the decisions of the lower courts.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examined in its judgment whether the complainant A. could rely on a mistake of fact under Article 13 SCC, despite being classified as not criminally responsible due to a severe mental illness (schizophrenia). The core of the decision lies in the distinction between a disease-related error and a relevant mistake of fact within the meaning of criminal law.

The court first clarifies that the concept of mistake of fact in Article 13(1) SCC is defined as a "faulty perception of the actual circumstances". The error must relate to an objectively perceptible reality that the perpetrator misjudges. However, the court emphasises that the causes of the error are generally irrelevant for the legal assessment under Article 13 SCC. This means that even an error based on delusional perception could initially be considered a relevant mistake of fact.

The Federal Supreme Court explains, however, that this general consideration does not apply to disease-related errors. In the case of a mental illness such as schizophrenia, the perception of reality is fundamentally disturbed. The perpetrator lives in a subjective reality of his own that can no longer be critically questioned. In such a case, the assumption of a mistake of fact within the meaning of Article 13 SCC is phenomenologically inappropriate, since the perpetrator does not base his actions on a misjudgement of objective reality, but his perception is shaped by the illness. The erroneous belief of the complainant that he was being attacked by…