Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
BEK 2018 55 • KG SZ BEK 2018 55 Generato dall'IA

Prosecutor's Appeal Against Release from Pre-Trial Detention

Numero d'incarto BEK 2018 55
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Canton Svitto (CH-SZ)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Archivio Entscheidsuche Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The appellate court considered a prosecutor's appeal against a lower court's decision to discontinue the pre-trial detention of an accused individual held in custody. The court reviewed whether the legal prerequisites for continued detention, specifically the risk of flight or risk of collusion, were met. The court reasoned that since the initial suspicion of the offense was deemed insufficient to sustain the detention order, and no new facts indicated an elevated flight risk or risk of tampering with evidence, upholding the lower court's decision to release the accused from pre-trial detention was appropriate under the relevant procedural laws.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 292 StPO, Art. 393 Abs. 2 lit. a StPO, Art. 422 Abs. 1 StPO; Prosecutor's Appeal Against Release from Pre-Trial Detention: The court reviewed whether the legal prerequisites for continued detention, specifically the risk of flight or risk of collusion, were met. The court reasoned that since the initial suspicion of the offense was deemed insufficient to sustain the detention order, and no new facts indicated an elevated flight risk or risk of tampering with evidence, upholding the lower court's decision to release the accused from pre-trial detention was appropriate under the relevant procedural laws.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
carcerazione preventiva principio di opportunità controllo della procedura impugnabilità della decisione di rinvio abbandono del procedimento penale diritti del detenuto Anordnung von Untersuchungshaft | Zwangsmassnahmen/Haft

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Art. 292 StPO
The appeal was dismissed based on the failure to meet the requirements of this provision regarding the immediate execution of the decision.
Art. 393 Abs. 2 lit. a StPO
The appeal was dismissed because the contested decision was not a final, appealable decision in the sense of this provision.
Art. 422 Abs. 1 StPO
The appeal was dismissed, and the costs were not charged to the appellant.
Generato dall'IA
BEK 2017 73
Prosecutor's Appeal Against Termination of Pre-Trial Detention Dismissed
BEK 2018 56
Prosecutor's Appeal Against Denial of Continued Pre-Trial Detention Dismissed
BEK 2014 210
Prosecutor's Appeal Regarding Extension of Pre-Trial Detention
BEK 2019 122
Appeal of Pre-Trial Detention Denial
BEK 2023 167
Appeal of Denial of Pre-Trial Release

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
Art. 292 StPO

The appeal was dismissed based on the failure to meet the requirements of this provision regarding the immediate execution of the decision.

Art. 393 Abs. 2 lit. a StPO

The appeal was dismissed because the contested decision was not a final, appealable decision in the sense of this provision.

Art. 422 Abs. 1 StPO

The appeal was dismissed, and the costs were not charged to the appellant.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

\n

\n

\n\n| | | |\n Kantonsgericht Schwyz |\n 1 |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n \n Beschluss vom 27. April 2018 \n BEK 2018 55 \n \n \n

\n\n| | |

|\n Mitwirkend |\n Kantonsgerichtsvizepräsidentin lic. iur. Daniela Pérez-Steiner, Kantonsrichter Clara Betschart und Josef Reichlin, Gerichtsschreiber lic. iur. Mathis Bösch. |\n

\n\n

\n \n \n \n

\n\n| | |

|\n In Sachen |\n Kantonale Staatsanwaltschaft, Postfach 75, SSB, 8836 Bennau, Strafverfolgungsbehörde und Beschwerdeführerin, vertreten durch Staatsanwalt A.________, gegen B.________, zzt. in Untersuchungshaft im SSB, Postfach 74, 8836 Bennau, Beschuldigter und Beschwerdegegner, amtlich verteidigt durch Rechtsanwalt C.________, |\n

\n\n

\n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n betreffend |\n Anordnung von Untersuchungshaft |\n \n\n

\n (Beschwerde gegen die Verfügung des Einzelrichters am Zwangsmassnahmengericht vom 12. April 2018, ZME 2018 39);-

\n \n \n \n hat die Beschwerdekammer, \n \n nachdem sich ergeben und in Erwägung: