Compensation after a partial acquittal: Which detention days are recoverable?

Section 2(1)(2) StEG 2005 contains two linked elements. The person must have been arrested or held on suspicion of a criminal offence. The person must then be acquitted or discharged from prosecution in respect of that offence. The wording therefore focuses on the particular allegation that gave rise to detention.

A partial acquittal can meet this requirement for one allegation. It still does not identify the part of the detention attributable to it. This is especially important where several allegations were pursued together or where the detention decision relied on a changing factual basis during the proceedings.

The later acquittal is the starting point. To identify recoverable days, the file must also show a temporal and factual connection between each detention period and the acquitted offence. That connection cannot be assumed merely from the outcome of the trial.

The attribution starts with the first detention order. It shows which suspicion and which ground for detention mattered at arrest. Each extension or detention hearing must then be checked to see whether the same allegations supported continued detention. An amendment to the indictment also belongs in the chronology.

The period between a change in the allegation and release is often important. If detention was first based on several offences and later only one allegation remained, the later decision may matter for individual periods. A simple division by calendar days ignores that development.

The final step is comparison with the operative part of the judgment or the discontinuance decision. The acquittal must cover the offence whose suspicion supported the relevant detention. If the file is inconsistent or incomplete, the safe result is an open attribution question until the missing documents are obtained.

A partial acquittal may sit alongside a conviction or another outcome on further allegations. These results must be kept separate when detention compensation is assessed. Section 2(1)(2) StEG asks whether detention was connected to the offence that ended in acquittal or discharge from prosecution.

An acquittal on one count therefore does not automatically produce compensation for detention maintained solely because of another count that was not acquitted. At the same time, a remaining conviction cannot conceal a possible connection between earlier detention and the acquitted allegation without further analysis.

Crediting pre-trial detention against a later sentence is a separate issue. It may affect the assessment of the same period, but it does not replace the section 2 StEG examination. The related article on crediting under section 38 StGB addresses that connection.

The review should use a simple chronology. Start with arrest and the first detention order and end with release. Add every detention hearing, every change to the allegation, every narrowing or expansion of the indictment and the decision that ended the proceedings.

The complete detention order, extension decisions, hearing records, indictment and amendments are particularly useful. They should be read with the acquitting judgment or discontinuance decision and an official record of the start and end of detention. A page showing only the result of the trial is often insufficient for allocating individual days.

Order the documents by date and allegation. A table can ask three questions for each period: which offences were named, which ground for detention was given and whether the later acquittal covers that offence. This makes clear where the attribution is supported and where legal assessment remains open.