Judge brought out the yardstick Pensioner (85) sentenced for missing dog ticket - now she has to pay 1,000 francs
An 85-year-old pensioner in Thun had to stand trial for a missing dog ticket worth five francs. In the end, she was convicted and ordered to pay a total of 945 francs.
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- An 85-year-old pensioner had to stand trial in Thun for taking the bus with her poodle without a dog ticket.
- The single judge, Matthias Zurbrügg, followed the prosecution's suggested sentence after using the yardstick in the courtroom: the dog was 35 centimetres tall instead of the permitted 30 centimetres.
- The woman was found guilty and must pay 945 francs instead of five francs for the dog ticket, and even 1545 francs with written justification.
- The verdict is not yet final, and several readers have already offered to pay the pensioner's costs.
An 85-year-old pensioner defended herself against a penalty order at the Bernese Oberland Regional Court in Thun on Monday afternoon. The public prosecutor's office wanted her to pay a total of 350 francs in fines, fees and compensation. The accusation: the woman had taken a bus with her small poodle without a valid dog ticket.
The case had already made waves beforehand. blue News reported extensively and visited the pensioner and her little poodle. According to her own statements, she had only put the dog on the ground for a short time to make it easier to get off the bus in the hustle and bustle.
Many readers reacted indignantly - not only about the inspector, but also about a fundamental question: how much leniency is still possible in everyday life when people are alone and overwhelmed in old age?
One 86-year-old reader wrote: "We old people have been there for others all our lives, but we are often overwhelmed by the new offers. That's why, with a little tolerance and a willingness to help, we can experience and master our old age in a positive way."
SP judge conducted a short hearing
In the courtroom, however, there was little sign of this debate. Court president and single judge Matthias Zurbrügg (born 1982) conducted the hearing in a formally correct but remarkably impassive manner. He read the pensioner (born 1940) her rights and offered her the opportunity to move closer to the bench so that she could hear better. The tone remained matter-of-fact and increasingly cool.
Zurbrügg, who has been a judge with SP party membership for around three years, asked very few questions. This was also noticeable because the pensioner appeared alone and unaccompanied by a lawyer.
The judge wanted to know, for example, why she had lodged an objection. The woman, who blue News calls Marianne Kählin (name changed), explained: "The same lady who checked me had seen me get on the bus with the dog five days earlier and the dog then jumped into the basket."
At the time, this was apparently not a problem. During the later check, however, the ticket inspector jumped out of the bus "like a rocket" and shouted after her that she had her personal details. Kählin told the judge that the procedure seemed like "highway robbery" to her.
She simply answered why she had not bought a dog ticket: "He was in his basket. And I was told: If the dog is in the basket, you don't need a ticket."
«I was told: If the dog is in the basket, you don't need a ticket.»
Tariff from SBB and Co.: dog ticket from 30 cm
In the end, however, the central question was not whether the pensioner had acted in good faith, but how big the dog actually was. According to the fare regulations, dogs are only allowed to travel free of charge in a basket if they are smaller than 30 centimetres.
Kählin brought the dog, which was sleeping alone in its basket outside the door, into the courtroom. The judge took a yardstick and had the court clerk record "35 centimetres". The pensioner pointed out that the dog had only been 25 centimetres tall when it was adopted. However, the judge left no room for maneuver: "According to the tariff regulations, it may only be 30 centimeters tall."
«According to the tariff regulations, it may only be 30 centimeters tall.»
President of the court
From this moment at the latest, it was clear which way the verdict would go.
The fact that the woman mentioned her poor state of health and referred to her limited resources did nothing to change this: "I don't have hundreds lying around either." Even when she mentioned other cases in her final words, the judge reacted dismissively: "That's a different case and has nothing to do with this one." The question of how big and how old the dog was at the time of the crime around eight months ago was not asked.
The trial ended up lasting much shorter than planned: It was over after just over an hour.
STI wanted to charge 50 francs for the criminal complaint
The verdict was correspondingly short. Zurbrügg followed the prosecution and found the pensioner guilty of violating the Passenger Transportation Act. Or in simple German: she was traveling with her dog without a valid ticket.
The fine remained at 100 francs. The procedural costs were set at 700 francs. There was only a correction in the compensation to the Thun public transport company (STI): They had demanded 195 francs, including 50 francs for formulating a criminal complaint. The court saw no legal basis for this. The compensation was reduced to 145 francs: 70 francs as a surcharge for a "partially valid ticket", 70 francs as a prosecution fee and five francs for the missing dog ticket.
This turns a missing ticket worth five francs into a bill for 945 francs. If the pensioner requests a written explanation of the ruling, the costs will rise to 1,545 francs. According to her own information, the woman lives on supplementary benefits, among other things.
Readers have offered donations
Kählin was sobered by the verdict. She interrupted the judge twice - he reacted sharply: "Now I'm talking!" At the same time, he stated that the culpability was "very, very low". Nevertheless, it was not enough for an acquittal. Also because it was not the first time: according to the court, it was her fourth time without a valid dog ticket.
In terms of proportionality, the judge said: "Some people would ask themselves why an "office is being opened" because of five centimetres. Others would ask the same question about a dog that was significantly larger. The decisive factor remains: the dog was too big and therefore needed a ticket.
The ruling is not yet legally binding - but has already triggered new reactions. Several readers contacted blue News and offered to pay the fines and fees, some even donating an annual subscription.
The pensioner herself was undecided after the trial. She said: "Maybe I'll do the one day in prison, I've never done that before and it would be a new experience."