The AI workspace for legal professionals

  • Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
  • Document automation
  • Matter management
  • Hosted in the EU and Switzerland

Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)

Try for freeBook a demo

Revision rejected in security-placement case; no expert bias

BGH 5 StR 381/13Bgh / Criminal Chamber 5Oct 9, 2013Dismissed

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Court dismissed the accused's revision against the judgment of the Regional Court of Potsdam ordering placement in a psychiatric hospital in preventive detention proceedings. It held that no reversible error was shown in the rejection of alleged bias of the expert, even though the expert worked in the clinic where the accused was provisionally housed. The Senate added that complaints about the accused's treatment in the clinic did not change that assessment. It also referred to constitutional case law on the need for the duration of such placement to remain proportionate. The accused was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Omnilex headnote

§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO; § 63 StGB; expert bias in criminal revision proceedings; a challenge of an expert does not follow merely from the circumstance that the expert works in the clinic where the accused is provisionally accommodated. For a finding of bias, additional circumstances must be shown that objectively justify concern about the expert's impartiality. The accused's subjective complaints about treatment in the clinic are not sufficient as such (consid. 1). Measures under § 63 StGB must also remain limited in duration in light of proportionality requirements; the Senate refers to the constitutional case law on temporal limitation of psychiatric placement (consid. 2).

Full text

BGH — 5 StR 381/13, Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2013-10-09

Aktenzeichen: 5 StR 381/13

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 74 StPO, § 349 Abs 2 StPO, § 413 StPO, §§ 413ff StPO, § 63 StGB

Vorinstanz: vorgehend AG Brandenburg, 21. Juni 2012, Az: 23a Gs 18/12vorgehend LG Potsdam, 25. April 2013, Az: 22 KLs 40/12, Urteil

Spruchkörper: 5. Strafsenat

Titelzeile

Revision gegen Anordnung der Unterbringung in einem psychiatrischen Krankenhaus im Sicherungsverfahren: Befangenheit eines Sachverständigen; Dauer einer Unterbringung

Tenor

Die Revision des Beschuldigten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Potsdam vom 25. April 2013 wird nach § 349 Abs. 2 StPO als unbegründet verworfen.

Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten des Rechtsmittels zu tragen.

Ergänzend bemerkt der Senat:

Eine Befangenheit des Sachverständigen ist trotz dessen Tätigkeit in der Klinik, in welcher der Beschuldigte einstweilig untergebracht ist, letztlich ohne Rechtsfehler verneint worden, ohne dass es für diese Beurteilung zum Nachteil des Beschuldigten auf dessen möglicherweise verständliche Beschwerden gegen seine Behandlung in der Klinik ankäme.

Der Senat verweist zur begrenzten Dauer der Unterbringung aus Verhältnismäßigkeitsgründen auf BVerfGE 70, 297.

Basdorf Schneider König

Berger Bellay

Keywords

revisionexpert biaspsychiatric hospitalizationpreventive detentionproportionalitycosts

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the revision against the order of placement in a psychiatric hospital was well founded, in particular because of alleged bias of the expert.

Extracted holding

The expert was not shown to be biased merely because he worked in the clinic where the accused was provisionally detained; the revision therefore failed.

Extracted reasoning

The Senate found no reversible legal error in rejecting bias. The accused's possibly understandable complaints about his treatment in the clinic did not alter that assessment.

Key legal question

Whether the duration of the hospital placement raised proportionality concerns.

Extracted holding

The Senate pointed to the constitutional requirement that placement must remain limited in duration for proportionality reasons.

Extracted reasoning

The court referred to the Federal Constitutional Court's case law on the time-limited nature of such measures, without altering the placement order in the present case.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.