Home burglary and damage of special insignificance: comment on judgment no. 28110 of 2024

The recent judgment no. 28110 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation is part of an ever-current legal debate concerning home burglary and the assessment of the insignificance of the damage. In particular, the Court clarified how the judge must consider not only the amount of material damage suffered by the victim, but also the moral damage resulting from the intrusion into the domestic sphere.

The legal context

In the case at hand, the defendant, A. A., was accused of home burglary. The Court of Appeal of Naples had initially assessed the damage suffered as of special insignificance, applying the mitigating circumstance provided for by art. 62, first paragraph, no. 4) of the Penal Code. However, the judgment of the Cassation Court stated that the judge must also consider moral damage, which often proves to be of significant importance.

The ruling's maxim

INSIGNIFICANCE - Home burglary - Damage of special insignificance - Assessment criteria - Moral damage caused by the criminal act - Relevance - Existence. In the context of home burglary, for the application of the mitigating circumstance referred to in art. 62, first paragraph, no. 4), of the Penal Code, the judge must also take into account the moral damage linked to the victim's suffering for the intrusion into their home.

This maxim highlights a fundamental aspect in the assessment of home burglary: moral damage cannot be overlooked. Intrusion into a home represents an act that not only causes material damage but also inflicts profound psychological distress on the victim. The Court, therefore, emphasizes that the judge must consider both dimensions of the damage for a fair and just assessment.

Damage assessment criteria

The Cassation Court's judgment reiterates that, for the correct application of the rule, it is essential for the judge to use objective and subjective criteria in assessing the damage. In particular:

• Material damage must be quantified based on concrete evidence, such as invoices or expert reports.
• Moral damage must be considered in relation to the victim's experience, taking into account their psychological state after the intrusion.
• The context in which the burglary occurred (time of day, presence of minors, etc.) can influence the overall assessment.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 28110 of 2024 represents an important step in the jurisprudence concerning home burglary. It highlights the importance of considering moral damage along with material damage, to ensure more complete justice that is attentive to the needs of victims. Therefore, it is crucial for legal professionals and judges to be aware of this aspect in their assessment activities, in order to avoid that the insignificance of material damage may diminish the actual suffering endured by victims of theft.