Facts
The appellant [A.] was convicted in 2004 with legal force for multiple attempted intentional homicide, multiple receiving of stolen goods, attempted and completed arson, attempted causing of an explosion, and trespassing, and sentenced to six and a half years of penitentiary. The execution of the sentence was suspended in favor of an inpatient therapeutic measure. In 2014, [A.] escaped from the residential and work external facility where the measure was being executed. He was later arrested and has since been in pre-trial detention. On 16 March 2015, the Office of Corrections ordered the early revocation of the inpatient measure due to futility. It applied to the District Court for the commitment of [A.] and the imposition of preventive detention. On 11 May 2015, the District Court placed [A.] in preventive detention.Considerations
The FSCA holds that the preventive detention ordered by the District Court cannot be based on Art. 440 CrimPC, as this provision is tailored to the limited time window between the final conviction and the commencement of the sentence or measure. After the revocation of the inpatient measure due to futility without the execution of a suspended custodial sentence, Art. 440 CrimPC cannot provide a valid basis for the deprivation of liberty. Instead, the cantonal law regulation on preventive detention under Art. 50(2) of the Introductory Act of the Canton of St. Gallen to the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code and Juvenile Criminal Procedure Code (EG-CrimPC/SG) is applicable here. As this is a…