BigJudges. There are special regulations for the juvenile justice system (Juvenile Court Act Jugendgerichtsgesetz (JGG)) (see s. 88 JGG).

Transcription

1 Bremen, January 2011 Conditional Release: The Work of the Court for Executing Prison Sentences Outline of the procedure using the example of Bremen, Germany, in the context of the EU-Project BigJudges 1 Björn-Oliver Kemper; Judge at the District Court Bremen Eduard Matt; criminologist, Senate for Justice and Constitution Bremen Antje Wolter; Judge at the District Court Bremen In Germany 2 conditional early release (from a prison sentence, under probation supervision) for adults is decided upon by the Court for the Execution of Prison Sentences (Strafvollstreckungskammer), a special chamber within the District Court 3 (henceforth referred to as the Court Chamber). 4,5 Conditional release has its origins in the Law of Mercy. It was first detailed in the 1871 Penal Code of the German Second Reich and again later in the 1953 German Penal Code (Strafgesetzbuch StGB) (s. 57 StGB) 6. As a prerequisite, the 1 BigJudges is the acronym of the EU project The role of judges in the transition from prison into liberty (BigJudges) based at the Senate of Justice and Constitution of the state of Bremen, Germany (Partners: The Netherlands, Austria and England; term: to ). The acronym was selected following the mentoring program BigBrothers-BigSisters. The project has been financed by the European Commission, Directorate General Home Affairs, programme: Prevention of and Fight against Crime Since judges and courts are independent, a regional culture has developed (not only on the level of regions and states, but also even on the level of each particular court). Consequently, there can be some variance in implementation within the legal context. In Germany, the responsibility for the prison regime lies at the level of each of the 16 states (it is not a national one). In this way, there can even be differences in the legal framework. 3 In accordance with the German Judicature Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (GVG): s. 78a GVG; s. 462a StPO (German Code of Criminal Procedure)). 4 There are special regulations for the juvenile justice system (Juvenile Court Act Jugendgerichtsgesetz (JGG)) (see s. 88 JGG). 5 The administrative responsibility for conditional release from prisons is organised in Europe in different ways. In the UK, for example, it is done by a so-called Probation Board (made up of board members and members of the community, judges only become involved where the case goes to recall). In the Netherlands, the public prosecutor is responsible for decisions of early release. 6 See f.e. for detailed information the annotations of Dünkel, in: Kindhäuser et al: NOMOS Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch. Band 1, 2010³, pp ; Frieder Dünkel, F:\Projekte\BigJudges\Bremen_Projekt\Procedere_StVK_Bremen_engl_v1rw version2.doc

2 ex-offender was expected to lead a law-abiding life. Sentence decisions have to be made by a judge due to the Basic Law (German constitution) (Grundgesetz GG) (s. 104 (2) GG). The Court Chamber and its work are not considered of great importance, more something of an aside. Mostly, it s work is an additional task to the normal burden of sentencing. There is no special training to learn how to do it, instead they learn by doing. 7 We do not know much about the outcomes of the Court Chamber s work, since there are very few reports and very little research on it. 8 In terms of rational crime politics, conditional release should be the normal und prevailing form of release for prisoners. The focus is on resettlement and rehabilitation. 9 In fact this is not the case. The rates of early release, be it in the German States, or in other European countries show a high variance in implementation. At the time there is a reporting of restrictions of use of this procedure, but this is not validated by figures. The prison is responsible for preparing the prisoner for release. In order to do this, the prison has to take into account the prisoner s situation at the time of release. Therefore, there is a necessity for co-operation with institutions outside prisons, for example the probation system, but also so as to achieve a systematic approach for resettlement, other institutions like voluntary organisations, aid institutions, work agencies, the community and others. European discussion focuses on questions of harmonising legal frameworks for conditional release in particular countries. Reference is made to the fact that there will be different conditions for prisoners sent back to their home country after release, due for example to a different legal framework there. But there should be comparable conditions. 10 A further question has been put, to which there is still no valid or detailed answer: What effect does conditional release have on the further Ineke Pruin: Germany. In: Frieder Dünkel et al. (eds.): Release from Prison. European Policy and Practice. Cullompton 2010, pp Compare the organisational framework: In Germany: Pensenschlüssel, Personalbedarfsberechnungssystem (PEPP Y) 8 Compare f.e.: Thomas Wolf: Strafvollstreckungskammer und Nachsorge. In: Rudolf Egg (Hrsg.): Ambulante Nachsorge nach Straf- und Maßregelvollzug. Wiesbaden 2004, pp ; Ulrich Kamann: Johannes Feest und das Ende (m)einer Karriere. In: Sven Burkhart et al. (Hrsg.): Korrespondenzen. Münster 2005, pp ; Kirsten Bolten: Der Übergang aus dem Strafvollzug in die Freiheit. In: Soziale Strafrechtspflege Nr. 44, 2008, pp Compare: Council of Europe: Recommendation Rec (2003) 22 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on conditional release (parole), 24. September Compare: Nicola Padfield, Dirk van Zyl Smith, Frieder Dünkel (eds.): Release from Prison. European Policy and Practice. Cullompton F:\Projekte\BigJudges\Bremen_Projekt\Procedere_StVK_Bremen_engl_v1rw version2.doc

3 development of the released person? Is it a supporting way for desistance? Does it reduce reoffending? We cannot explore these topics at any length here. Below we aim to give a detailed description of the procedure in the case of early release (in accordance with s. 57 StGB (penal code), in conjunction with s. 454 StPO (Law of criminal procedure)). For the sake of clarity we will distinguish between these three phases: Application Decision Probation The text focuses on describing structure and procedure. Remarks concerning questions surrounding practical implementation, existing and possible problems have been confined to the footnotes. A Application The procedure can be started in two different ways: Either the public prosecutor 11 files an application at the two thirds point of the sentence ex officio to the prison to ask if the inmate agrees to be released earlier. 12,13,14 Alternatively, the inmate himself files an application for early release to the Court Chamber. Empirically, one has to find out if some measures have been put in place in prison between the date of application and the decision about the application. 15,16 11 The responsibility lies at the prosecutor where the conviction has been done. In consequence, for many inmates prosecutors are responsible who are non-local. 12 In England & Wales there exists the possibility to impose special measures on the convicted at the court sentence. If the convict fulfils these conditions he is allowed to file an application on early release at a date, which will be fixed by the court at the sentence. This procedure does not exist in Germany. Notwithstanding, in Germany the judge can formulate informally- some recommendations for the time in prison. In principle it is the judge at the Court Chamber who decides on the conditional release, not the judge at the Criminal Court. In case of the postponement of the sentence due to the start of a therapy (in accordance with s. 35 of the German law governing the use and traffic of drugs (Betäubungsmittelgesetz BtMG)) the judge at court can give his agreement in advance in the sentence (in case of appropriate efforts of the person). This will be a motivation for the convict, but it also helps to speed up the process of application for therapy. 13 Mandatory early release, as it exists in some other European countries, is not possible in Germany. In case of a mandatory early release the date of release would be fixed during sentencing in court. 14 In Austria, the application is filed at the halfway and the two thirds point of the sentence ex officio. 15 Does preparation for release in the prison start at the time of application or is preparation a systematic element of the prison regime and its implementation? 16 One has to ask: Is there strict, systematic compliance with the regulations of the 2/3 point for possible release in terms of the existing sentence planning and its updating F:\Projekte\BigJudges\Bremen_Projekt\Procedere_StVK_Bremen_engl_v1rw version2.doc

4 The inmate s consent is required to start the procedure and application of early release. 17 A1 Ex officio: The prosecutor s application Ex officio the prosecutor files an application with the prison at the two thirds point of the sentence of a prisoner to ask if the prisoner consents to the procedure of application for early release. 18 The prosecutor supervises the timeline. It is of the utmost importance to adhere to this timeline, particularly in those cases when an (external) expert s opinion has to be produced. Prison officers ask the inmate to sign a form to state whether s/he agrees to or rejects the application. If the inmate rejects the application, it will be sent back to the prosecutor. If the inmate agrees, the signed form will be sent to the prosecutor together with the prison s response to the application 19. The prosecutor also formulates a report and sends the application and the report to the Court Chamber. A2 The application by the inmate The inmate can ask the prison staff, orally or in writing, for an application for early release. 20 He could also ask the prosecutor or the Court Chamber directly, in written form or via a lawyer 21 if s/he has one. (and the possibility to ask the prosecutor and/or the Court Chamber to ask the inmate for his agreement to the procedure)? Does the prosecutor organise the procedure in such a way so that he always files his application with the prison at the 2/3 point? The procedures of prosecution offices from abroad can also influence the process. Further on: Is the probation office informed when the procedure begins (at least 6 months before the 2/3 point)? 17 The inmate can renounce the possibility of early release. Some inmates prefer to complete their sentence. That way they will not be under probation, and do not have to comply with obligations. Some inmates even feel safer in prison than at liberty. 18 In practice, it is not possible to check if the application is filed in a timely and systematic manner. It is recommended that the application be filed 3 months before the 2/3 date. If it is necessary for the application to ask for some expert s reports, there will be some delay. Only when an application is sent to the prosecutor in good time, is the 2/3 release point assured. Due to the responsibility of non-local prosecution offices for inmates in many cases, it is not possible to have an overview. 19 The point of a quick and timely proceedure is an empirical one. 20 In practice, of course, prison staff may try to talk the prisoner out of the application, referring to a lack of chance for success or due to other reasons. F:\Projekte\BigJudges\Bremen_Projekt\Procedere_StVK_Bremen_engl_v1rw version2.doc

5 The application is bound to the schedule. Legally, the first opportunity to file an application is at the halfway point of the sentence after having served at least 6 months (s. 57 (2) StGB (penal code)). The second restriction is the 2/3 point (compare A1) having served at least 2 months of the sentence (s. 57 (1) 1 StGB (penal code)). After having served 2/3 of the sentence, the application can be filed at any time. The prison governor can instigate the procedure and sent the report to the prosecutor. In isolated cases, especially in cases when the inmate has shown very good conduct, has a good prognosis and has been convicted for the first time, the prison starts its work very early. In those cases early release could be possible after serving only half the sentence. The prison governor, or the responsible head of department, writes a report about the inmate. This report is based on conduct in prison, the sentence plan (in Bremen this is regularly written if the inmate has to serve a sentence of more than a year), any updating of the sentence plan, and on the staff s assessment. 22 Where the sentence is below one year, reference is made to the intake notices. If preparation for release has already begun in prison, some relevant information about the inmate s social situation outside prison, accommodation and work will be available. In the context of the formulation and updating of the sentence plan all departments of the field are involved in the presentation of the case (the inmate's contact person of the prison officers; the psychologist, the social worker, the workshop leaders and others). In the report the prison, mostly, argues for or against an early release of the inmate. At the same time the prison governor may propose some measures and councils for the time after release. If the offender s probation officer is known (which is mostly not the case) s/he can be stipulated in the report and s/he can be informed about the possibility of the offender s early release. Notwithstanding the decision regarding early release can only be made by the Court Chamber. 21 In practice, we sometimes find a gap in communication: Many inmates do not know that they do not have a lawyer. If they had a court appointed defense lawyer in court, this lawyer is not responsible for them any more after the court session. If there is a delay in the application at the 2/3 point, this can also be a cause of concern for the inmate. (Neither prison staff nor the prosecutor s office really control the 2/3 point.) 22 In practice, there are currently no systematic analyses on criteria and background knowledge which influence the reports. Neither is there much data available on which resources are used for the report (prisoner file, sentence plan), or how this knowledge has been gathered and who really writes the report. F:\Projekte\BigJudges\Bremen_Projekt\Procedere_StVK_Bremen_engl_v1rw version2.doc

6 The application and the report is sent to the prosecutor. 23,24 The prosecutor formulates its own report and sends all files to the Court Chamber. The following illustrates the proceedure in chart format: B The Decision The application is processed by the Court Chamber. There are different outcomes possible depending on the particulars of the case. 1. If the inmate rejects the application for early release, a decision is made by the Court Chamber to continue the execution of the prison sentence In order to maintain good relationships, the probation office also gets the report in Bremen. Another possibility is to have regular meetings between prison and probation to discuss the upcoming cases. 24 If the inmate himself files the application, it is theoretically possible that the prison sends this consent to the prosecutor waiting to be asked by the prosecutor to write a report. But normally, the consent and the prison report will be send together to the prosecutor. 25 In practice it is not clear if a decision needs to be made in this case. It is also unclear if there should be a written order under these circumstances - together with an F:\Projekte\BigJudges\Bremen_Projekt\Procedere_StVK_Bremen_engl_v1rw version2.doc

7 2. If all participants approve the application in their written reports (inmate, prison, prosecutor), there may be (legally) no oral hearing of the convict. The positive order will be decided on the basis of the information submitted. In these cases the convict s situation should prove to be unproblematic, so long as there is a good prognosis, and the case not serious. To make the decision, the judges must have to hand most files pertaining to the sentence. These include the reports of the prison and the sentence, but are mostly made up of further information, such as the sentence plan and its updating, plus correspondence To consider the application, the judge fixes a date of an oral hearing to get a personal view of the convict and his situation. The inmate is asked about his life situation and any problems he may have. Further persons can take part (lawyer, social worker, probation officer), according to the needs of the particular case. Different fields have to be clarified: the social situation, accommodation, where relevant drug therapy, work situation and so on. 27 There is no complete list of criteria for the approval of an application for early release. Different dimensions will be taken into account: the personality of the convict, his life prior to incarceration, the particularities of the offence, the risk of recidivism (risk of reoffending, seriousness of possible future offences), the behaviour of the convict in prison, but also his situation after release (accommodation, work, social relationships), and the effect an early release could have on his further development. If necessary there will be further reports and expert opinions. 28 If the Court Chamber is considering approving the application, in certain defined cases an expert's opinion on the assessment of the future dangerousness of the person is mandatory (s. 454 (2) StPO (Code of Criminal Procedure) with reference to s. 66 explanation of rights of appeal. If so, the inmate could appeal against the order arguing that now s/he consents. But it is easier to file a new application. Bremen s practice is to generate an order even if the inmate does not consent to the ex-officio two thirds point of the sentence. In the other situations there will be no such order. 26 Often the judge will read all the information about the case to reach an assessment. 27 This is really the question of whose criteria which are used for approval of the application: criteria and areas which come into consideration (work, accommodation, family etc.) how information on these areas will be gathered in the phase of the preparation for release in prison? Does the prison officer trust the information supplied by the inmate? Is an officer appointed to control and assess the social, family and work situation of the inmate outside prison? 28 Expert's opinion prolongs the process. They are also subject to dispute: Should expert opinion be shared amongst all participants in the procedure (judge, prison)? F:\Projekte\BigJudges\Bremen_Projekt\Procedere_StVK_Bremen_engl_v1rw version2.doc

8 (3) sentence 1 StGB (Penal Code)). 29 Normally, this has to be done in cases of a single sentence of more than 2 years and with reference to specific offences (index crimes, as well as some other offences). If all participants come to the conclusion, that there is no danger of future crime, there is no need for an expert's opinion. Conditions can be imposed upon the order. According to German law, there is a distinction between conditions (Auflagen; s. 56b StGB (penal code)) and orders (Weisungen; s. 56c StGB (penal code)). Conditions refer to the compensation and restitution of the damage. Orders refer to general conduct; they are imposed to avoid future offending. More generally-formulated conditions and orders may be imposed, such as trying to find work, keeping up contact with the probation officer, informing authorities of change of accommodation, staying away from drugs, avoiding certain milieus and so on. However, they can be formulated also in a more specific way. 30 Done as specific obligations, they include concrete commitments for the convict. This can only be done if there has been some preparation and organisation in prison, like timing, contracting, finding funds for measures etc.. This way, corresponding measures can be imposed in the order, such as drug therapy, gainful employment, therapeutic measures etc.. Where fixed accommodation is imposed (be it therapy, be it psychiatry), the consent of the convict is required (s. 56c (3) StGB (penal code)). Very good knowledge of the case is needed to formulate specific conditions. The judge may formulate conditions and orders which he thinks are necessary, within the corresponding legal frame. There is no finite list, but conditions should be not unreasonable (s. 56b (1) sentence 2 StGB (penal code)). They should not be against the basic rights of the convict. The imposition of conditions and orders also forms part of the monitoring of the case. Acceptance of the conditions by the convict will be taken as an expression of his motivation and willingness to comply with the goal of rehabilitation. The lenght of probation has to be fixed (s. 56a StGB (penal code)). The minimum duration is 2 years; the maximum is 5 years from initial decision. Probation can be extended for a further 50% of the initially-agreed term. That way a maximum of 7 1/2 years of probation is possible. Appeal can be made against the imposed conditions of the order (s. 305a German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO)). 29 The court chooses the expert. Legally, there are no clearly defined criteria for the selection and the qualifications of the experts. 30 The distinction between general and specific obligations is an empirical one, it is not legally fixed. F:\Projekte\BigJudges\Bremen_Projekt\Procedere_StVK_Bremen_engl_v1rw version2.doc

9 3a. If there is no chance for approval of his application, the convict can withdraw his application at the oral hearing, incurring no personal negative consequences. He is allowed to file a new application at any point in the future. In this case, the judge can advise the convicton what kind of measures he should undertake in order to improve his chances in case of any further application. 3b. If the application does not find approval by the judge, it will be rejected. The inmate will get an order in written form (including explanations on rights of appeal). The inmate can immediately object to this order. A new application is possible. In certain cases the judge may impose a holdback period not exceeding 6 months during which time the inmate may file a new application (s. 57 (7) StGB (penal code)). The holdback period serves to clarify basic questions, but also to determine the motivation of the inmate. 3c. If the application is approved, the date of the release has then to be fixed. In cases of the two thirds point of the sentence decision this would be the date. If there are some particularities (delay in sending files, missing expert s opinion, missing reports) there can be some derivation from this rule. If all prerequisites are met, the date for release can be fixed rather quickly (in practise, within minimum 3 to 7 days, rarely quicker). The date of release can also be bound to other dates, not just the ½ or 2/3 point of sentence, but also to, for example, educational or professional exams, confirmation of accommodation, work or qualification, and so on. Consequently, the date of release can be considerately later that the date of decision. 31 Minutes of the oral hearing should be sent at once to the prison. It is important for the prison to receive feedback such as the judge s decision, whether the sentence will continue or what the date of release is set as. Then, they are not reliant on the inmate s description and may begin the work of the detailed preparation for release. The Court Chamber should also send the order to the prison on time. 32 The convict can object if the case is rejected, as can the prosecutor if a case is approved (s. 454 (3) sentence 2 StPO (Code of Criminal Procedure)). 33 The objection will have a dilatory effect. After the hearing of the case at the general 31 Substantial time between the hearing fixing the order and the date for release can result in the Court Chamber asking the prison about new developments in the case. Normally the prison will inform the Court Chamber of any significant events. 32 In practice this depends on the particular judge. 33 We can see evidence of this procedure in use. In Bremen we find it used particularly amongst non-local prosecutors. There is no systematic evaluation of this procedure. F:\Projekte\BigJudges\Bremen_Projekt\Procedere_StVK_Bremen_engl_v1rw version2.doc

10 prosecutor and its report the case is sent to the Higher Regional Court for a final decision. 34 The order is sent to the probation office, where a probation officer is put in charge. 35 This chart gives an overview of the proceedure: 34 A systematic method of objection means that all participant institutions carry the decision commonly. That way it is not only a decision of the Court Chamber, but one of reciprocal supervision. 35 In Bremen, the work of the probation office is allocated according to district of residence. Consequently, important to have the correct address of the convict on file. F:\Projekte\BigJudges\Bremen_Projekt\Procedere_StVK_Bremen_engl_v1rw version2.doc

11 C Probation 36 The task of monitoring the convict is confined to the probation officer. But the judge may also control and support the convict; he requires no particular prompt to order a hearing. In the context of is project, we may also ask if contact with the judge could inspire greater commitment as well as an increased compliance with the obligations. 37 According to how the case develops, the probation period will either be extended, come to an end or the offender will be recalled into prison. Legally the recall is bound to three potential factors (s. 56f German Penal Code (StGB)): a) New offences b) Gross and persistent violation of the terms of probation or persistently ignoring contact with and supervision of the probation office (in connection with the risk of new offences) c) Gross and persistent violation of orders Ad a) Recall in case of new offences The Court Chamber is informed of new offences both by the prosecutor and by the probation office. The prosecutor informs the Court Chamber about new offences should they come to know about them. Usually they will not inform the court about every actual offence, but would do so if the offender is charged. Normally, they send a copy of the charge sheet to the probation office and, where applicable, to the lawyer. 38 The probation officer will inform the Court Chamber about new offences of the convict as part of their (obligatory) reporting proceedure but if necessary they will ask the prosecutor beforehand. 36 The group of the clients of the Court Chamber is constituted not only by those who left prison via early release on probation. They also have to supervise those persons, who left the prison for therapy (in accordance with s. 35 BtMG (Controlled Substance Act)), have finished therapy and are now under probation. A further group are those convicts on a suspended sentence by a District Court (Amtsgericht), who have been in prison during their probation period due to other offences. Then they will be supervised by the Court Chamber. 37 New evaluation research shows personal contacts play a strong role in the success of resettlement. A trusting relationship is a prerequisite, as is mutual respect. That way the relationship can really support the compliance. 38 The flow of information between the particular institutions involved is very often problematic. F:\Projekte\BigJudges\Bremen_Projekt\Procedere_StVK_Bremen_engl_v1rw version2.doc

12 There are certain circumstances under which the probation officer could also inform the Court. The prosecutor files an application for recall. The Court Chamber rules on this application. 39 The Court Chamber has the authority to reject this, extend the probation or recall the offender. As part of the recall proceedure, the convict is able to comment at the hearing, either verbally or in writing. The probation office is also informed, via a copy. The probation officer may produce a report or a proposal for the oral hearing. Ad b + c) Recall in case of violation of licence conditions The probation officer informs the Court Chamber of the offender s non-compliance with his/her terms of probation. The Court chamber may also find out about the violations via their own monitoring of the case. 40 Where the convict is recalled, his/her oral testimony is mandatory. A decision is made on the basis of the particulars of the single case. The probation office is informed of the date of the oral hearing. Legally, the probation officer is not obliged to participate, he has no compulsory attendance, but for the sake of good cooperation he will mostly take part in the hearing. In the case of a gross and persistent violation of the terms of probabtion, a recall is deemed necessary, justifying the assumption, that the convict will offend again. The outcome of the application for recall and the oral hearing will go one of two ways: a) An extension of probation, with amendments to the offender s obligations and orders. This ruling may be used when the convict is not at fault, for example if s/he is fired by an employer due to causes beyond his/her control, or unforeseen changes in living conditions etc.) (s. 56f (2) StGB (penal code)). b) a recall If the Court Chamber decides to recall, there is a written order. The convict and the prosecutor have the right to file an objection within one week of this order, after which the order becomes valid. 39 Normally the Court Chamber must wait until the end of the proceedings. An immediate ruling only occurs should the accused make a confession to the judge. 40 Judges can organise their own case, for example by summoning the convict themselves for an oral hearing. Here their work overlaps somewhat with the work of the probation office, so there is a certain need for these two to liaise. F:\Projekte\BigJudges\Bremen_Projekt\Procedere_StVK_Bremen_engl_v1rw version2.doc

13 The prosecutor sends out a summons for the start of the prison sentence. With good behaviour in prison, the convict can file a new application for early release. This chart illustrates this probation proceeedure: C3 Positive development of the probation If there are no great complications or problems the order of remission of punishment marks the end of the probation period (s. 56g StGB (penal code)). In this case, firstly, any new offences are clarified (via the prosecutor and/or a statement of the Federal Central Criminal Register; not normally via the police). If necessary, the ex-offender s address will be checked. The Court Chamber sends the file to the prosecutor, to report on the remission of punishment. The prosecutor files an application for the remission of punishment. The application then returns to the Court Chamber. Where applicable, the Court Chamber carries out the remission order. F:\Projekte\BigJudges\Bremen_Projekt\Procedere_StVK_Bremen_engl_v1rw version2.doc

14 Where the application is approved, the probation period is completed. An order of remission of the punishment is produced as well as a written order. 41 The prosecutor may immediately object. Concluding remarks: Early release from prison is complicated both organisationally, by an ample legal framework and operationally, since it is necessary for so many institutions to be involved (The Court Chamber, prosecution, prison, etc.). Collaborative supervision is necessary if early release is to be supported, and the prosecutor may object. All this adds to the legal security and the controlled procedure. Successful implementation requires good scheduling, good knowledge of the case and also functioning communication structures and co-operation between the institutions involved. This way a qualified way of early release for the exprisoner can be managed. 41 Normally there will be an indication of the preliminarity of the order. Recall could still take place if details of new offences come to light afterwards (s. 56g (2) StGB (penal code)). F:\Projekte\BigJudges\Bremen_Projekt\Procedere_StVK_Bremen_engl_v1rw version2.doc