Accessory liability and the right to self-defence: non-punishability for false statements. Supreme Court ruling no. 19461/2025

Criminal law is a constantly evolving field, where jurisprudential interpretations define the boundaries of responsibility. The Supreme Court ruling no. 19461 of 26 May 2025 offers a crucial clarification on accessory liability and the non-punishability of false statements made to protect one's own position. A ruling of great importance that strengthens the principle of self-defence.

The case examined and the legal issue

The case concerned Mr. L. F., accused of accessory liability. L. F. had made and then reiterated untruthful statements during the investigations, with the intention of avoiding a criminal charge against him. After a conviction in the Court of Appeal in Reggio Calabria, the Supreme Court, presided over by D. A. G. and with C. A. as rapporteur, partially annulled the decision without referral. The central issue was to establish whether such statements, made to evade a criminal charge, could fall under the ground for non-punishability.

The exemption under Article 384 of the Criminal Code: protection and limits

The Supreme Court applied Article 384 of the Criminal Code, which excludes the punishability of those who have committed an offence (such as accessory liability, pursuant to Article 378 of the Criminal Code) because they were compelled by the necessity of saving themselves or a close relative from a serious and unavoidable harm to their personal liberty or honour. The Court reiterated that this exemption also applies when false statements are made to avoid a criminal charge against oneself, making the existence of other defence options irrelevant.

In the context of accessory liability, the ground for exclusion of punishability provided for those who committed the act because they were compelled by the necessity of saving themselves or a close relative from a serious and unavoidable harm to their personal liberty or honour also applies in cases where the perpetrator made false statements to avoid a criminal charge against themselves, the existence of other and different defence options being irrelevant.

This maxim clarifies an essential principle: the law recognises a "procedural self-defence" in extreme situations. The "necessity" to protect primary assets such as liberty or honour justifies conduct that would otherwise be unlawful. The subject is not required to have exhausted all other defence strategies; the aim of avoiding a criminal charge, in the presence of the threat of serious prejudice, is sufficient to trigger the exemption, strengthening the right not to self-incriminate, a principle also protected by Article 24 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR.

• Those who lie to avoid a criminal charge directed at themselves or a relative are not punishable.
• The necessity is linked to the potential "serious and unavoidable harm" to liberty or honour.
• Other defence avenues do not automatically exclude the exemption.

The exemption does not cover false statements made to generally mislead investigations or to favour third parties not linked by close kinship ties, but applies strictly to the aim of avoiding a direct criminal charge.

Conclusions: a strengthening of individual guarantees

The Supreme Court ruling no. 19461 of 2025 represents a significant step forward in balancing the ascertainment of procedural truth with the safeguarding of the fundamental rights of the accused. By recognising the applicability of Article 384 of the Criminal Code even to false statements aimed at avoiding a personal criminal charge, the Supreme Court has provided greater clarity and more robust protection for the right to self-defence.