Serious procedural error Federal Court overturns acquittal in abuse case

The Federal Supreme Court has overturned an acquittal in a child abuse case because the Bernese High Court had conducted an inadmissible written procedure.

The Federal Supreme Court has decided to overturn an acquittal in a case of child sexual abuse. The acquittal was originally granted by the Bernese High Court, which ruled in the appeal proceedings without an oral hearing. This decision was based on the principle of "in case of doubt for the accused", although the requirements for a written procedure were not met.

Originally, the Bernese Jura-Seeland District Court had sentenced the defendant to a conditional prison sentence of one year in 2020. The single judge had found the man's protestations of innocence to be less than credible. Two years later, the Bernese High Court ruled in favor of the defendant and acquitted him after suggesting to the parties that an oral hearing be dispensed with. This would have had to take place in camera due to the age of the injured parties. The parties agreed to the written procedure, which was based on the files of the first instance.

In its ruling on Thursday, the Federal Supreme Court clarified that written proceedings are only admissible in exceptional cases, in particular if they relate exclusively to legal issues. Evidence taken at first instance must be re-examined on appeal, especially if the impression left by its presentation is decisive. This is particularly true when statements contradict each other and the credibility of the parties involved must be assessed.

The Federal Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not have suggested the written procedure. Criminal proceedings are not subject to the free disposition of the parties and it is the responsibility of the appellate court to conduct the trial properly. Since the High Court fundamentally questioned the credibility of the accused and the victim, it should have conducted a new hearing of evidence and heard the parties and witnesses again. (Judgment 7B_215/2022 of October 25, 2024)

SDA