Admissibility of the appeal by the Public Prosecutor's Office against acquittal

Facts

In the early afternoon of August 8, 2005, X. was walking her dogs on the Stogelenstrasse in Pfäffikon/ZH between the lido and the Tharnhof. Suddenly, a deer jumped out of the bushes. Her collie chased it for a distance of about 30 to 40 meters. She called her dog back, and it immediately returned. X. was accused of not having her dog on a leash.

On June 22, 2006, the single judge in criminal matters of the District Court of Pfäffikon found X. guilty of negligent release of her dog within the meaning of Art. 18 para. 1 lit. d and Art. 18 para. 3 of the Hunting Act and fined her CHF 200. On her appeal, she was acquitted of the aforementioned charge by the High Court of the Canton of Zurich on January 25, 2007.

Against this, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zurich lodges an appeal in criminal matters, requesting the annulment of the High Court's judgment and the remission of the case for a new assessment.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court first examines whether the Public Prosecutor's Office is entitled to appeal in criminal matters. According to Art. 81 para. 1 lit. a CPC, the appellant must have participated in the previous instance proceedings. Although the Public Prosecutor's Office was not directly involved in the High Court proceedings, it has always had the possibility to influence the appeal proceedings through its supervisory and directive powers. Therefore, it is to be considered as a party to the proceedings within the meaning of Art. 81 para. 1 lit. a CPC.

Pursuant to Art. 95 CPC, an appeal in criminal matters is admissible, among other things, due to a violation of…