Facts
The case concerns two individuals, J. and I., who were involved in a vehicle driving case. J. presented herself to the police in response to a summons addressed to the unknown driver of a determined vehicle and falsely presented herself as the driver. I. decided by mutual agreement with J. that she would present herself to the police and falsely give herself as the driver.
The facts gave rise to a criminal procedure, during which J. was accused of deception of justice by false self-accusation (art. 304 ch. 1 al. 2 SCC) and I. was accused of calumny (art. 303 SCC) and participation in the offense punished under art. 304 ch. 1 al. 2 SCC.
The Court of Cassation was seized of the case and rendered a judgment that annulled I.'s conviction for calumny and referred him to the cantonal jurisdiction to be tried for participation in the offense of deception of justice by false self-accusation.
Considerations
The Court of Cassation considered that J. had committed deception of justice by false self-accusation, as she had presented herself to the police and falsely presented herself as the driver, even if she contested having committed the offense in question. The Court estimated that the determining element was the false assumption of the role of the accused.
Regarding I., the Court considered that he had not committed calumny, as he had not accused J. of an offense she had not committed. However, the Court estimated that I. had participated in the offense of deception of justice by false self-accusation, by deciding by mutual agreement with J. that she would present herself to the police and falsely give herself as the driver.
The Court concluded that I.'s participation in the offense of deception of justice by false…