-
» Excellent «
For some years now, car speed races have been making headlines in Switzerland. It is not uncommon for this to involve fatalities. In 1999, two men engaged in a spontaneous car race in the evening. They sped into the village of Gelfingen in close succession at massively excessive speeds. One driver lost control of his vehicle during an overtaking maneuver before a blind left-hand bend. The car hit two pedestrians who died from their injuries. In this blog, it will be explained whether the requirements for intentional homicide in the sense of Art. 111 CPC are met in the case of a car speeding accident. Other offenses may also be fulfilled. For more information, please contact one of our lawyers for criminal law in St. Gallen, Zurich and Frauenfeld.
The first objective fact must be the death of a person caused by a perpetrator. The death must have been caused by the actions of the perpetrator and objectively attributable to the perpetrator. Lawyers and attorneys for criminal law in Switzerland can explain the details of what qualifies as objective facts.
The objective facts of the case are satisfied if a person dies as a result of a car accident caused by the car speeder.
In order to be guilty of intentional homicide, there must be intent. An act is committed intentionally if it is carried out with knowledge and will (Art. 12 para. 1 CPC). It is sufficient that the perpetrator perceives the fulfilment of the act as possible and accepts it so (contingent intent, Art. 12 para. 1 CC). The intent must be present at the time of the offense and relate to all objective facts of the offense. A distinction is made between three types of intent. Firstly, there is direct intent of the first degree. This form of intent means the offender recognizes the possibility of the result of the offence or knows with certainty that it will occur and strives for this success. Secondly, there is direct intent in the second degree. This means the occurrence of the success was foreseen as a certain (secondary) consequence of the conduct. In this case, the perpetrator accepts the success. As already mentioned above, there is a third type of intent, the contingent intent. This exists if the success is foreseen as seriously possible and the perpetrator accepts the possible occurrence of the success. If there is any uncertainty about which type of intent applies to your situation, our lawyers for criminal law in Zurich, St. Gallen or Frauenfeld will advise you.
In the case of speeding accidents, it is usually doubtful whether there is contingent intent. First, it must be examined whether the perpetrator seriously foresaw the possibility of success. An argument supporting this is the perpetrator driving far above the speed limit. In doing so, he had to expect to lose control of the vehicle. He also had to consider the possibility that other people or drivers were also on the road. A discerning element of the question of whether the perpetrator considered the success, is whether he realized that he had heightened the possibility of the success by his actions. The perpetrator could have accepted the success if his only aim has been to eliminate his rival in a speeding race and to prove the superiority of his driving. If contingent intent is not evident, negligence might be. If this is the case, the offender is not liable to prosecution for intentional homicide, pursuant to Article 111 of the Criminal Code.
It is always necessary to examine each case of car speeding individually, whether there was intentional homicide or ‘only’ negligent homicide. Lawyers for criminal law in Frauenfeld, Zurich and St. Gallen are at your disposal.