When section 162 StPO protects the identity of a witness in Austria and how the defence can assess questioning and trial fairness.
Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt
Your lawyer for criminal defence
Criminal proceedings are a matter of trust. One lawyer who walks with you from the first consultation through to the trial, everything from one hand.
Section 162 StPO allows an Austrian court to protect a witness from identifying questions where specific facts point to a serious risk. The defence must still be able to examine the basis and reliability of the evidence. The key issues are the actual danger, the scope of protection and the questions that remain possible.
This page concerns a protected witness and questioning by the defence. Excluding the public or the accused from a hearing raises separate procedural questions.
Choose the situation closest to your case. The result identifies points to check in the case file and hearing record.
Would you like to discuss the case?
This orientation cannot replace a review of the criminal file.
Excluding the public concerns who may attend the hearing. It does not automatically determine which identifying answers a witness may withhold from the defence. The related article explains non-public hearings.
Section 250 StPO concerns examination while the accused is absent and information given after the accused returns. Check the hearing record to see what the accused was told about the examination and statement. This is distinct from identity protection under section 162 StPO.
Compare the permitted questions with the statement made by the witness and the other evidence. The central issue is whether the defence could address the perception conditions and contradictions that mattered to the allegation.
Record the exact question, what it was intended to clarify and whether a non-identifying alternative was available. The relevance of the question and the court response can then be assessed in the context of the whole case.
Section 162 StPO requires specific facts pointing to a serious danger. Ask which questions fall within the restriction and what reasons can be explained without defeating the protective purpose. This does not require making the identity of the witness public.
Identify what other evidence supports the allegation and whether the anonymous statement is the sole or decisive evidence. The ECtHR assesses the fairness of the proceedings as a whole and the safeguards available. No automatic outcome follows without a case-specific review.
The court may permit a witness not to answer questions about their name or other personal details. This can also cover questions whose answers would allow conclusions about those details.
The measure requires specific facts indicating a serious risk to the life, health, physical integrity or liberty of the witness or a third person. The risk must be connected to disclosure of the identity or an answer that reveals it.
The wording does not create automatic secrecy based on the impact of the testimony or a general concern. The court must consider the concrete danger and the scope of protection.
Section 162 StPO can protect identifying details and answers that reveal identity. It also permits a change in external appearance so that the witness is not recognised.
The face may not be covered to the extent that facial expressions indispensable to assessing credibility become unobservable. Identity protection can operate while the substance of the statement remains open to examination.
Each question should be considered individually. The defence may seek to test what the witness personally perceived, the conditions of observation and consistency with earlier statements. A question can be restricted if its answer would reveal identity.
Article 6(3)(d) ECHR protects the opportunity for an accused person to examine, or have examined, witnesses against them. Within its scope, section 249 StPO allows participants in proceedings before a Schöffengericht to ask questions after the presiding judge gives them the floor. Impermissible questions are rejected and inappropriate questions may be prohibited.
The right to ask questions operates within procedural controls. It must still provide an adequate opportunity to examine the incriminating statement. The applicable form depends on the court and the course of the proceedings.
Useful points may include the conditions of perception, timing, possible interests, earlier statements and inconsistencies. Defence counsel can explain why a question matters and propose wording that avoids protected identity details.
The ECtHR assesses the fairness of the proceedings as a whole. In Doorson v the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1996, paras 69 to 76, it found the use of anonymous witnesses compatible with Article 6 on the safeguards present in that case. The defence could put questions unless they risked revealing identity. The Court also stated that a conviction should not be based solely or decisively on anonymous statements.
Van Mechelen and Others v the Netherlands, judgment of 23 April 1997, paras 56 to 66, reached a different result on its facts. The defence faced severe restrictions on questioning and could not observe the witnesses; their statements carried particular weight. The Court found that the disadvantages had not been sufficiently offset and held that Article 6 had been violated.
These judgments establish neither automatic admissibility nor an automatic exclusion rule. They focus attention on the reasons for protection, the questions actually available, other safeguards and the weight of the statement in the full evidential picture.
Sections 229 and 230 StPO concern exclusion of the public. They address who may attend the hearing. That decision does not determine by itself which identifying answers a witness may withhold from the defence under section 162 StPO. The related article covers non-public hearings.
Section 250 StPO concerns examination while the accused is absent and the information given after the accused returns. That is also distinct from protection of identifying answers.
Read the identity-protection order, the record of the examination and the earlier statement. For each refused question, note what it was meant to establish, why it matters to the defence and whether non-identifying wording was available.
Check which specific facts support a serious danger, which details are protected and what reasons the court can explain without undermining that protection. The purpose is to define the boundary of the restriction, not to demand unexamined public disclosure of identity.
Compare the statement with the conditions of perception, possible interests, inconsistencies and other evidence. If it is the sole or decisive evidence, the effect of restricted questioning deserves particular scrutiny. Defence counsel should assess the available procedural response against the case file and hearing record.
Section 162 StPO may permit the witness to withhold answers that identify them. Whether the restriction is compatible with a fair trial depends on its reasons, the remaining opportunity to question the witness and the weight of the statement.
A change in external appearance is permitted. The face cannot be covered so far that facial expressions indispensable to assessing credibility become unobservable.
In Doorson, the ECtHR stated that a conviction should not be based solely or decisively on anonymous statements. The fairness assessment also considers the reason for protection and the available safeguards.
No. Sections 229 and 230 StPO concern public access. Section 162 StPO concerns identifying answers by a witness. Both issues may arise in one case, and each requires separate assessment.
Legal updates. New articles and legal information from the firm are available through BRANDaktuelle Rechtsnews.
When a court may exclude the public and which hearing-access question is involved.
How an objection and evidence in the next stage of criminal proceedings fit together.
In criminal matters every hour counts. Call us directly or send an email, callback within one business day, earlier in urgent cases.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg
Phone
+43 660 2407152