Rejection of the Motion for Recusal against the Public Prosecutor

Facts

The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zug is conducting criminal investigations against [X.] and co-defendants for offences against property and documents. The accused [X.] filed a motion for recusal against the investigating public prosecutor, which was dismissed by the Deputy Attorney General of the Canton of Zug. [X.] appealed against this decision to the FSCA. The FSCA dismissed the appeal. It concluded that the appellant's submissions did not establish a duty of the public prosecutor to recuse himself. In particular, the judges saw neither the discontinuation of proceedings nor the press releases of the public prosecutor as a reason for his rejection. The FSCA found that the public prosecutor had observed the required restraint and prudence in his information to the public.

Considerations

According to the case law of the FSCA, criminal prosecution authorities such as public prosecutors can generally only be rejected if there are circumstances that are objectively capable of giving rise to the appearance of bias. Routine procedural measures or criticism of the conduct of the investigation are usually not sufficient for this. Rather, particularly gross or unusually frequent omissions and deficiencies of the public prosecutor must be apparent.

In the present case, the FSCA did not consider the…