A 59-year-old has been given a conditional prison sentence of two years.
The suspect’s dog is said to have been jumpy.
Even perpetrators who confess in principle often still feel the need to report their crimes in a way that mitigates or justifies them. In contrast, the 59-year-old accused, who is on trial in Winterthur, is tough on himself. As a court reporter, you see that extremely rarely. Without even the slightest hint of relativization, he confesses and admits everything, including the subjective facts and the legal assessment. When the presiding judge asked about the strength of his blow, he said without hesitation, “I think it was powerful.”
Traveling with a frightened dog
“It was the worst day of my life,” says the Swiss, who was previously completely blameless and had no criminal record, about July 1, 2021. “I wish that day hadn’t existed.” After a visit to a restaurant, the man, who was unemployed at the time, walked home through Winterthur with his girlfriend and dog. Then it happened that a garbage truck pulled up behind them onto the sidewalk on which they were walking. The garbage men wanted to collect garbage.
The dog owner then got into an initially verbal argument with the truck driver. The reason was that the truck allegedly drove too close to the dog. Both men insulted each other. The dog owner confirms the presiding judge’s criticism that he was often tense when walking the dog because the dog is not easy to lead and is easily frightened.
The chauffeur got out of the garbage truck. The dog owner handed over a stone, went towards the chauffeur, stood in front of him, reached out with his outstretched arm and hit his opponent with the stone – according to the indictment – “suddenly and powerfully” against the left side of his face. The driver had to be hospitalized with a broken cheekbone.
He found the stone in a garden immediately before and took it, says the accused. According to his memory, it was not a cobblestone, he specifies, but “a big enough one”. The judge asks why he took the stone. “It was in my head that I would put the stone on the car,” explains the accused, but confirms without hesitation that he then hit the chauffeur with the stone “without warning” in the face. He also recognizes the great danger of this blow.
He believes that the chauffeur did not see the stone in his hand before the hit. But he did not actively hide it. He wanted to hit the chauffeur in the head with it, the chauffeur didn’t have to expect it. And then he even says: “I certainly hit harder than my head said I should.”
The dog owner was arrested and was detained for two days. He didn’t expect that at the time, he says in the courtroom. It was bad. But he wasn’t even aware of what he was doing. The short questioning before the court does not provide a real explanation for his actions. From the beginning of the investigation, he was self-confessed. Prosecution and defense were able to agree on an abbreviated procedure.
Victims and perpetrators have agreed financially
The accused expresses remorse in court and apologizes again to the chauffeur who was not present. He hopes that there is no permanent damage. The proposed verdict is attempted grievous bodily harm and a suspended sentence of 24 months imprisonment with a probationary period of two years. The accused is also obliged to pay the injured party 12,500 francs; since he is unemployed, in monthly installments of 250 francs.
According to his own statements, the 59-year-old owes CHF 500,000 from two bankruptcies at his company. After originally completing an apprenticeship as a chemical laboratory assistant and many further training courses, he worked in various industries. After a year of unemployment, he has now founded a new sole proprietorship and offers accounting services. Independence is the only thing left to him, he says. At his age he can no longer find a job. As his plans for the future, he says, he wants to spend time with his partner and the dog and “survive professionally”.
The court approves the verdict. The sanction is appropriate, explains the court chairman. It was a case in which the abbreviated procedure was really worthwhile. Thanks to the accused’s confession, the investigation could have been kept very lean. The accused had also reached a financial agreement with the private prosecutor, “which is not a matter of course”.
Judgment DH220021 of October 13, 2022, abbreviated procedure.