Facts

On 1 April 2018, at 3.24 a.m. in Arth, on the A4 motorway in the direction of Goldau, in conjunction with a road construction site, the appellant drove a car at 129 km/h (after deducting the 4 km/h tolerance margin) on a stretch with an 80 km/h speed limit.

By penal order of 30 November 2018, the Public Prosecutor of Innerschwyz found the appellant guilty of a serious negligent violation of road traffic rules under Art. 90 para. 2 RTA in conjunction with Art. 27 RTA and Art. 4a para. 5 TRegO.

Ruling on the defendant's objection, by judgment of 26 June 2019 the Sole Judge of the District Court of Schwyz confirmed the guilty verdict and sentenced the appellant to a monetary penalty of 50 daily units of CHF 60.-- each, conditionally suspended for a 2-year probationary period, plus a fine of CHF 750.--, with a substitute custodial sentence of 13 days.

The appellant appealed, requesting the appointment of a legal aid lawyer; the presiding judge rejected the request on 9 December 2019, and the Federal Supreme Court, by judgment 1B_34/2020 of 5 February 2020, declared the related appeal inadmissible.

By judgment of 6 October 2020, the Criminal Court of the Cantonal Court of Schwyz, partially upholding the appeal, confirmed the conviction for serious negligent violation, reducing the monetary penalty to 40 daily units of CHF 30.-- each, conditionally suspended for 2 years, the fine to CHF 300.--, and the substitute custodial sentence to 10 days.

By criminal appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, the appellant, who is unrepresented, essentially requests that the offence be reclassified as a contravention, that the penalty be reduced, and that legal aid be granted, as well as that the proceedings be conducted in Italian. The appeal contains no formal submissions, but the Federal Supreme Court examined its content. No exchange of written submissions was ordered.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examines of its own motion the admissibility of the appeal. The appeal, lodged by the defendant against a final decision in criminal matters of a cantonal authority of last instance, was filed in time. Although the submission lacks formal requests in the strict sense, its content makes the requests clear (reclassification, reduction of the penalty, legal aid), and the prohibition of excessive formalism precludes declaring it inadmissible on that ground. The proceedings are conducted in Italian, the language used by the appellant, who is domiciled in Ticino, and in which the appeal was drafted (Art. 54 para. 1 FSCA; Art. 42 para. 1 FSCA).

The Federal Supreme Court applies the law of its own motion, but as a rule considers only the arguments raised in the appeal, which must engage with the contested judgment. The Federal Supreme Court is bound by the authority below's findings of fact (Art. 105 para. 1 FSCA); complaints of constitutional rank require clear and precise reasoning (Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA). The appeal largely fails to meet these requirements.

As regards the serious violation of road traffic rules, Art. 90 para. 2 RTA punishes anyone who seriously violates the rules and thereby puts the safety of others at serious risk; an increased abstract endangerment is sufficient, while on the subjective side gross negligence is required. For speeding offences, case law sets objective thresholds: on motorways the case is serious from 35 km/h over the limit, save for exceptional circumstances. The appellant exceeded the limit by 49 km/h, at night, on a stretch with a single lane of traffic, without any exceptional circumstances being established.

The appellant does not contest the retroreflective nature of the signage, established by the cantonal authority, and does not demonstrate arbitrariness; the signage complies with Art. 102 para. 4 RSO. The works and 80 km/h limit signs were timely distinguishable, the radar was placed after the closure of…