In its decision of 7 May 2024 (ref. 4 StR 82/24), the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has clarified the legal requirements for the application of the § 315b Criminal Code (StGB)) in the event of a dangerous interference with road traffic.
The case concerned a man who, in a state of paranoid schizophrenia, threw a paving slab onto the road. The BGH decision clarifies the requirements for the offence of dangerous interference as well as the conditions for placement in a psychiatric hospital after § 63 German Criminal Code.
Facts
The defendant, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, threw a paving slab at an approaching vehicle, causing property damage of around 10,000 euros. The driver was uninjured and was able to safely control the car.
The Darmstadt Regional Court assessed the act as a dangerous interference with road traffic (Section 315b para. 1 no. 3 StGB), attempted dangerous bodily harm (§ 224 German Criminal Code), damage to property (§ 303 German Criminal Code) and threat (§ 241 German Criminal Code). It also ordered the defendant to be placed in a psychiatric hospital.
Legal assessment
- Dangerous interference with road traffic (§ 315b StGB):
The BGH emphasized that a dangerous interference with road traffic occurs when an action – such as throwing a paving slab – leads to a specific traffic-specific danger. This requires that the danger is at least partially attributable to the propulsion forces typical of traffic processes. In the present case, it was determined that the driver was still able to safely control the vehicle despite the damage and that the damage was not attributable to such a traffic-specific danger. - Intent and dangerousness of the perpetrator:
The assumption of a criminal offence pursuant to § 315b StGB requires that the offender has the intention of causing a specific danger to road traffic. In the case of mental illness, it is particularly important to examine whether the offender had the necessary will due to his condition. The Federal Court of Justice pointed out that it does not preclude the assumption of natural intent if the offender fails to recognize facts due to his condition that any mentally healthy person would have recognized correctly. Nevertheless, the exact circumstances and the offender’s inner attitude must be carefully examined. - Withdrawal from the attempt and its significance for accommodation:
The BGH found that the regional court had not made sufficient findings as to whether the accused had withdrawn from the attempt to cause grievous bodily harm. Withdrawal would reduce the dangerousness of the behavior and call into question the basis for placement in a psychiatric hospital. The will not to complete the crime or to avert its success removes the particular dangerousness of the perpetrator’s behavior. Without a clear determination as to whether the accused had withdrawn from the attempt, the placement measure cannot be upheld.
Conclusion
The BGH has clarified that for the application of the § 315b StGB not only must there be a danger to road safety, but this danger must also be specifically related to traffic. It is also crucial whether the perpetrator has withdrawn from an attempt in order to avoid punishment, especially if he or she is acting due to a mental illness. The decision underlines the importance of carefully examining the subjective and objective elements of the offence as well as the internal aspect of the offence when assessing the dangerousness of the perpetrator.
Latest articles by Attorney Jens Ferner (Specialist in IT & Criminal Law) (Show all)
