Facts

On 24 November 2016, the Olten-Gösgen District Court convicted the appellant of multiple counts of robbery and multiple violations of the Narcotics Act and sentenced him to 20 months' imprisonment and a fine of CHF 150. To treat his mental disorder and substance addiction, the court ordered an inpatient therapeutic measure under Art. 59 SCC and suspended the prison sentence in favour of that measure.

On 12 November 2019, with a view to the annual review of the measure under Art. 62d SCC, the appellant applied to the Solothurn Cantonal Office of Justice Enforcement (the Office) for free legal aid and the appointment of his lawyer as official defence counsel. On 9 December 2019, the Office informed him that the last review had taken place on 13 May 2019, that the next would take place in the same period in 2020, and that the application would be decided when the proceedings were initiated. On 22 January 2020, the appellant repeated the application.

By decision of 18 February 2020, the Office, acting for the Solothurn Department of the Interior, rejected the application. Administrative proceedings were in principle free of charge, so there was no need to examine free legal aid; moreover, no factual or legal difficulties were apparent in the annual review that would require a legal representative.

On 23 April 2020, the Solothurn Administrative Court dismissed the appeal lodged against this decision. The application had been made for a future proceeding before the review proceedings had been opened; the Office therefore should not have entered into the matter, but the outcome was not open to objection.

By appeal in criminal matters, the appellant requests that the judgment of the administrative court be set aside and that free legal aid with legal representation be granted for the review in 2020. The Administrative Court requests that the appeal be dismissed. The Office waived its right to submit a response.

Considerations

The appeal in criminal matters is admissible against the cantonal court of last instance's interlocutory decision under Art. 78 para. 2 let. b FSCA and Art. 80 FSCA. The appellant has standing as a party to the proceedings under Art. 81 para. 1 let. a and b FSCA, even though he is not expressly named as a convicted person with a final judgment. Whether he would suffer irreparable harm under Art. 93 para. 1 let. a FSCA remains open. Submissions by the appellant that do not concern free legal aid are not to be assessed; the reply, which was filed late, is disregarded. The question of the power of attorney has been resolved by the submission of 4 June 2020.

The complaint of a violation of the right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 Cst.), based on allegedly inadequate reasoning and a contradiction between the operative part and the reasons, is rejected. The lower court addressed the essential issues, and there is no contradiction. The complaint of a violation of the principle of equal and fair treatment (Art. 29 para. 1 Cst.) therefore falls away.

The appellant argues that the fairness principle (Art. 29 para. 1 Cst.) was violated because the decision on free legal representation was made only at the hearing under Art. 62d para. 1 SCC. According to case law, there is in principle no entitlement to free legal representation for future proceedings that have not yet been initiated; this applies in particular to the annual review of a measure (BGE 128 I 225 E. 2.4.2).…