Facts
Parties and procedural history:
The appellant [A.A.] (born 2011) was charged by the Juvenile Prosecutor’s Office of Zurich-City with the alleged theft of an e-scooter on 15 May 2024 between 15:20 and 15:55. He was accused of taking the unlocked vehicle and driving it despite lacking the minimum age required to operate such a vehicle. On 29 August 2024, the Juvenile Prosecutor’s Office issued a penal order for theft of a vehicle for use under Art. 94 para. 4 first sentence RTA and for a violation of the Traffic Licensing Ordinance (TRegO; SR 741.51) pursuant to Art. 143 item 1 TRegO in conjunction with Art. 5 para. 2 lit. d and Art. 6 para. 1 lit. f TRegO and issued him with a reprimand. The appellant filed an objection to the penal order.
On 15 July 2024, the appellant applied for the appointment of Attorney-at-Law Dr. iur. Max Bleuler as an official defender for the juvenile criminal proceedings. This application was rejected by the Senior Juvenile Prosecutor’s Office of the Canton of Zurich by decision dated 19 August 2024. The appellant filed an appeal against this rejection with the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich, 3rd Criminal Division, on 30 August 2024, seeking the retroactive appointment of Attorney Dr. Bleuler as an official defender as of 13 July 2024. By decision dated 29 January 2025, the Higher Court dismissed the appeal.
The appellant then filed an appeal in criminal matters with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking to have the Higher Court’s decision set aside and Attorney Dr. Bleuler retroactively appointed as an official defender as of 13 July 2024. He also requested free legal aid and representation for the federal court proceedings.
Considerations
Admissibility of the appeal: The Federal Supreme Court first examines the admissibility of the appeal. The contested decision of the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich, 3rd Criminal Division, dated 29 January 2025 constitutes an independent interlocutory decision in a criminal matter that may cause an irreparable disadvantage within the meaning of Art. 93 para. 1 lit. a FSCA. The appeal in criminal matters is therefore generally admissible (Art. 78 para. 1 and Art. 80 FSCA). The appellant is entitled to file an appeal pursuant to Art. 81 para. 1 lit. a and lit. b item 1 FSCA. The other requirements for a decision on the merits are met, so the Federal Supreme Court must hear the appeal.
Requirements for grounds of appeal: The appeal must set out in concise form, pursuant to Art. 42 para. 1 and para. 2 FSCA, in what respect the contested decision violates the law. The grounds must be relevant and show that and why, in the appellant’s view, the law has been violated. The appellant must address the reasoning of the lower court and may not confine itself to mere repetitive criticism. A qualified duty to state reasons applies in particular where alleged violations of fundamental rights are concerned (Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA). The Federal Supreme Court bases its judgment on the facts established by the lower court and may only correct or supplement them if they are obviously incorrect or based on a violation of the law and the rectification of the defect could be decisive for the outcome of the proceedings (Art. 97 para. 1, Art. 105 para. 1 and para. 2 FSCA).
Examination of necessary defence: The appellant alleges a violation of Art. 24 lit. b JCrimPC, under which an official defender must be appointed if the accused juvenile is unable to adequately safeguard his or her procedural interests and the legal representative is also unable to do so. However, the lower court correctly found that the facts and the legal assessment are not extraordinarily complex. The appellant confessed during the police interview and the allegations are not of particular severity, as this is merely a petty offence. Although the appellant may have difficulty safeguarding his procedural interests due to his young age and personal circumstances (including the mental illness of the legal representative and a low level of education), he is supported by a guardianship under Art.…