Facts
On 27 March 2014, a traffic accident occurred on Albisstrasse in Mettmenstetten. The Public Prosecutor's Office Limmattal/Albis commissioned the Forensic Institute Zurich (FOR) to prepare a preliminary report with a cost estimate for a technical accident report. The preliminary report was signed by three persons, including [B.] , who was later commissioned to prepare the technical accident report. The appellant [A.] lodged a complaint against the decision of the High Court of the Canton of Zurich, which had dismissed her request that [B.] should recuse himself.
The appellant argued that [B.] was prejudicially involved because he had co-signed the preliminary report and was now commissioned to prepare the technical accident report. She feared that [B.] would come to the same conclusion in the report to be prepared as in the preliminary report.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether a ground for recusal existed within the meaning of Art. 56 lit. b CrimPC. It found that the lower court had rightly assumed that the respondent, as an expert in the preparation of the accident report, would be dealing with the same subject matter as during the review of the preliminary report.
The court stated that the impartiality and independence of experts must be guaranteed according to Art. 29 para. 1 Cst. and Art. 30 para. 1 Cst. It found that the respondent's prejudicial involvement, objectively considered, created the appearance that he was no…