Facts
The Federal Court was seized of a criminal appeal against a judgment of the Supreme Court of the canton of Berne. The appellant, [A.], had been convicted of rape, simple bodily harm, coercion and threats to a custodial sentence of 4 years and 9 months, as well as a pecuniary penalty of 70 daily fines. The Public Prosecutor's Office had filed a joint appeal, requesting a custodial sentence of 5 years and a half, whereas it had requested a sentence of 4 years in the first instance.
The facts of the case are as follows: [A.] had forced his wife to have sexual relations with him on several occasions, had physically assaulted her and threatened her with death. The Jura bernois-Seeland Regional Court had convicted him of these acts, and [A.] had appealed against this judgment. The Public Prosecutor's Office had then filed a joint appeal, which had led the Supreme Court of the canton of Berne to increase the sentence.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the criticisms expressed by the appellant in connection with the admissibility of the conclusions taken by the Public Prosecutor's Office in its joint appeal and the application in this context of the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in pejus. It recalled that the Public Prosecutor's Office may freely appeal, both in favor of and against the defendant or the convicted person, without needing to justify a legally protected interest.
However, the Federal Court considered that the Public Prosecutor's Office's joint appeal had to be examined with caution, as it could be used to put pressure on the defendant and deter him from filing a main appeal. It estimated that the filing of a joint appeal by the Public Prosecutor's Office had to be motivated and not used to circumvent the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in pejus.
In this case, the Federal Court found that the Public Prosecutor's Office had filed a…