Facts
The appellant [A.] was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for qualified serious violation of traffic rules pursuant to Art. 90 para. 3 RTA. He had participated in a car parade in his passenger car on June 13, 2016, after a European Championship match, and triggered a skidding maneuver, causing his vehicle to skid uncontrollably towards pedestrians. The lower court assumed that the appellant had intentionally triggered the skidding maneuver to perform a drifting maneuver.
The appellant claimed that the private video recording of the skidding and the technical accident analysis based on it were not admissible as evidence, as they had been created without his consent. He also alleged that he had not intentionally triggered a skidding maneuver, but that his vehicle had entered a rotational motion due to an unfortunate combination of circumstances.
Considerations
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction for qualified serious violation of traffic rules. It assumed that the lower court had rightly assumed that the appellant had intentionally triggered the skidding maneuver to perform a drifting maneuver. The court found that the video recording and the technical accident analysis were admissible as evidence, as they had been created by a private person and the law enforcement authorities had lawfully obtained them.
The Federal Court also found that the appellant had fulfilled the subjective elements of the offense of qualified serious violation of traffic rules, as he had reckoned with and accepted the realization of the offense. It assumed that the appellant had accepted the violation of the elementary traffic rule of controlling the vehicle and that he had accepted the realization of the risk that an accident with…