Facts
The case concerns an aircraft hijacking by the appellant P. On March 15, 1977, [P.] hijacked a scheduled flight and forced landings at various airfields, accompanied by extortionate demands and serious threats. In doing so, he significantly disrupted the public air traffic protected by Art. 237 of the Swiss Criminal Code (StGB). The jury court subsequently convicted [P.] under Art. 237 para. 1 subpara. 2 StGB, as he had knowingly endangered the life and limb of many people.
[P.] filed a nullity appeal against this judgment. He denied having endangered the life and limb of air traffic participants, arguing in particular that the temporary closure of Kloten Airport had precisely served to prevent any danger.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the nullity appeal. It stated that in the case of intentional disruption of air traffic combined with the perpetrator's knowledge of the danger to life and limb of people, the application of Art. 237 para. 1 StGB does not depend on proof of a particularly high degree of probability of a specific outcome occurring. Whoever knowingly creates an increased risk of an aircraft crash through intentional acts of disruption must be punished under Art. 237 para. 1 StGB, even if the possibility of mastering the risk created by the disruption still exists.
The Federal Supreme Court found that [P.] had created a significant potential for additional risks through the forced flight movements, such as the temporary closure of Kloten Airport, the pilot's fatigue, and the danger of fuel shortage. In doing so, he…