Facts
The District Court of Winterthur convicted X. of various offenses and ordered an inpatient therapeutic measure under Art. 59 para. 1 of the Swiss Criminal Code (StGB). X. appealed against this measure and alleged a violation of the prohibition on delegation and the principle of transparency in the preparation of the psychiatric expert opinion.
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It upheld its previous case law, according to which the appointed expert must, in principle, carry out the mandate personally, but can call in assistants for subordinate tasks. The involvement of assistants must be made transparent in the expert opinion by stating their names, functions, and specific contributions.
In the present case, the expert witness, Prof. Dr. med. D., only carried out a small part of the personal examinations himself, but had the majority conducted by other professionals. However, the Federal Supreme Court did not see this as an impermissible delegation, as the extensive medical records of the appellant made the personal exploration less important. The involvement of a psychologist for the psychological testing was also considered permissible.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court stated that an actual delegation of the expert opinion mandate requires the prior consent of the criminal prosecution authorities. However, for the mere involvement of assistants, such authorization is not…