On Tuesday, a former public prosecutor sat in the dock in Innerrhoden because the accidental death of an apprentice was statute-barred without anyone having to answer for it. Three judges who would normally rule the case went on strike. The verdict: acquittal.
—
The fatal accident of an apprentice almost 10 years ago led to delays due to investigations and finally to the statute of limitations on the case – now the public prosecutor is in the dock.
—
Because the accidental death of an apprentice expired without penalty, the former Innerrhod public prosecutor Herbert Brogli was on trial in Appenzell on Tuesday. The judges’ panel acquitted him of the charge of multiple beneficiaries. However, the president of the court emphasized:
“But that doesn’t mean that no mistakes have happened.”
Investigation was delayed
The background: on September 17, 2010, a 17-year-old apprentice died in a car garage in Appenzell because he was trapped in a goods lift. The lift had already been complained about by the labor inspectorate and the supplier was requested to remedy the defects. Nevertheless, he continued to run without the necessary safety precautions. Prosecutor Brogli subsequently initiated investigations. These were delayed so much that it was not until six and a half years later that the charges against three accused of negligent homicide were brought to the Appenzell district court – against the head of the training company, the teacher and the manufacturer of the goods lift. The case no longer comes to court; In September 2017, the Innerrhoder district court closed the proceedings because the limitation period had expired.
Brogli justifies the failure with the workload
Brogli, who was released after an external investigation report in 2018 and subsequently resigned, justified the failure in court with the workload that he was not able to cope with as the sole public prosecutor. He had accumulated over 200 hours of overtime per year, he said before the judges panel. Several times he asked the government to increase its human resources, without success. He says:
“It was never my intention that the procedure should become statute-barred.”
He may have messed up the case, said his defense lawyer, but in no way deliberately accepted that it would expire. He demanded that his client be acquitted. The judges followed this line of argument. There are no signs that he deliberately let the case become statute-barred, the verdict said.
The case should have been closed after a year and a half at the latest, however, had carried out the indictment. The extraordinary public prosecutor demanded a conditional prison sentence of nine months with a probationary period of two years in three cases because of multiple favors.
–
