Judgment No. 1796 of 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important opportunity for reflection on the dynamics related to the appointment of defence counsel in the context of the constitution of a civil party. In particular, the Court ruled on the rigidification of procedural rules governing the appointment of multiple defence counsel, highlighting a crucial distinction between the figure of the injured party and that of the civil party.

Context of the Judgment

The case concerned the defendant A. D. G. and an issue related to the validity of the constitution of a civil party through a defence counsel different from the one appointed for filing the complaint. The objection raised by the defendant was based on the alleged invalidity of the appointment, pursuant to Article 24 of the implementing provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the Court deemed this objection unfounded.

Appointment of a second defence counsel for the constitution of a civil party - Failure to revoke the defence counsel appointed for the purpose of filing the complaint - Irrelevance - Reasons - Case law. The provision of Article 24 of the implementing provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which the appointment of further defence counsel is considered ineffective until the party has revoked previous excess appointments, does not apply with regard to the appointment of a second defence counsel, functional to the constitution of a civil party, different from the one previously appointed solely for the purpose of filing the complaint, as such appointment produces effects only outside the proceedings, due to the difference and not necessary coincidence between the figure of the injured party, which is substantial, and that of the civil party, which is strictly procedural. (Case in which the Court deemed unfounded the objection of the defendant appellant based on the alleged invalidity of the constitution of a civil party made through a defence counsel different from another previously appointed for the sole purpose of filing the complaint).

Implications of the Judgment

The decision of the Court of Cassation sheds light on some fundamental aspects concerning the right to defence and the possibility of availing oneself of multiple defence counsel during criminal proceedings. In particular, an important distinction is outlined:

• Injured Party vs. Civil Party: The injured party is the one who has suffered the crime, while the civil party is the one who constitutes themselves to seek compensation. This implies that defence needs may differ.
• Appointment of Defence Counsel: The appointment of a second defence counsel for the constitution of a civil party does not require the revocation of the first defence counsel appointed for the complaint, thus simplifying access to justice.
• Effects Outside the Proceedings: The appointment of a second defence counsel does not produce immediate procedural effects but allows for more flexible management of the defence.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 1796 of 2024 represents an important step forward in protecting the rights of the parties in criminal proceedings. It clarifies that the appointment of a second defence counsel for the constitution of a civil party is a legitimate faculty and should not be hindered by procedural rigidities. This ruling is part of a broader legal context in which the right to defence and effective access to justice are increasingly recognised values. It is essential that parties involved in criminal proceedings are aware of these rights in order to best navigate the complexities of the legal system.