Evidential Value of Police Reports: Analysis of Judgment No. 10376 of 2024

Judgment No. 10376 of April 17, 2024, by the Court of Cassation offers important clarifications regarding the evidential value of police reports, a crucial topic in the context of documentary evidence in civil proceedings. This ruling delves into the concept of "full proof" provided by police reports and the limits of their validity, particularly in relation to the statements of the parties involved and information obtained by public officials.

The Principle of Full Proof and the Action for Forgery (Querela di Falso)

According to the principle expressed in the judgment, police reports have the effect of full proof, until an action for forgery (querela di falso) is brought, for the statements of the parties and for facts attested by the public official as having occurred in their presence. However, concerning factual circumstances ascertained by third parties or following other investigations, the report retains intrinsic credibility, but this can only be challenged with specific contrary evidence. This aspect is fundamental, as it establishes a balance between the need for reliable evidence and the right to challenge such evidence through adequate contrary demonstration.

Police Report - Evidential Value - Full Proof Until Action for Forgery (Querela di Falso) - Scope and Limits - Identification - Circumstances Not Entitled to Privileged Faith - Assessment of Such Circumstances as Intrinsically Credible - Configurability - Condition. A police report serves as full proof, until an action for forgery (querela di falso) is brought, only for the statements of the parties and other facts that the public official attests as having occurred in their presence. For other factual circumstances that the official reports having ascertained during the investigation, having learned them from third parties or following other investigations, the report, by its nature as a public document, still possesses intrinsic credibility that can only be undermined by specific contrary evidence. (In application of this principle, the Court rejected the ground of appeal which criticized the contested judgment for having disregarded the "full proof" value of measurements made by the traffic police, who intervened immediately at the scene of an accident and reported them in the official record).

Practical Implications of the Judgment

This decision not only confirms the importance of police reports as a means of evidence but also highlights some practical implications for parties involved in legal disputes:

• Evaluation of Evidence: Parties must be prepared to challenge information contained in police reports if it is not supported by direct evidence.
• Legal Strategy: Preparing an action for forgery (querela di falso) can become a fundamental strategy for those wishing to question the credibility of a police report.
• Awareness of Rights: It is crucial for parties to be aware of their rights and the methods for challenging evidence to avoid surprises during the proceedings.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 10376 of 2024 represents an important step in understanding the evidential value of police reports. It clarifies the limits and conditions of validity of information provided by public officials, establishing a significant distinction between direct and indirect evidence. Parties involved in legal proceedings must keep these principles in mind to navigate the legal system effectively and protect their rights.