Who informed online journal Villiger would not be charged over vehicle discrepancies?

An investigation is under way as to who told the Republik online journal which leaked the news about the Lucerne Prosecution Service’s decision not to charge Beat Villiger, the cantonal director of public safety, over discrepancies relating to paper work involving the sale of a car he owned and allowing a friend to drive the same knowing she had no licence, the journal opting to publish this news just days before the election.

A spokesman for the Lucerne Prosecution Service, Simon Kopp, has since confirmed that an investigation into this is under way, the potential culprit being guilty of divulging confidential material. It was also confirmed the department looking into this was a different one from that which looked into the original case against Villiger (photograph), the one which concluded that the CVP politician had no case to answer.

Kopp said that anyone seeking such information would have to have applied for it in advance. Was the matter leaked by anyone involved with the prosecution services, police force or road traffic licensing departments of either Zug or Lucerne?
“We do not know, and it could be the online journal got its information from another source,” added Kopp.

As to why days passed before the Lucerne Prosecution Service began its investigation, Kopp said that the start of any such enquiry must be carefully planned and organised, not least because they wanted a different prosecution lawyer (within the same authority) to look into the matter.

When Andreas Eicker, a professor of criminal law at the university of Lucerne, was asked about this, he said the prosecution authority had no option as to whether to investigate the leak, they were under obligation so to do if there was sufficient reason to suspect this was the case.

And would it not have been more appropriate for the prosecution service of another canton to be called into investigate, rather than for Lucerne to investigate itself, as it were? The legal expert’s response to this was that it was be too early and disproportionate to have initiated this. It was now a case of seeing how the case developed.

Then there is the question as to what extent the person who did divulge this information was guilty of whistle-blowing or whether this may have been justifiable. On this point the Federal Court says that all internal ways of bringing the matter to light must be exhausted before taking steps to make the information public. However, anyone divulging official secret information (for no public benefit) can be given a three-year sentence or fined.

It has since been confirmed Villiger will remain the director of public safety in the canton, the equivalent of the Home Secretary, so to speak, once the new period of legislation begins on 1 January