Risk of Recidivism and Lack of Prior Convictions: The Court of Cassation with Judgment no. 30405/2025 Clarifies the Limits of the Presumption

In the landscape of Italian criminal law, the issue of precautionary measures and, in particular, the assessment of the risk of recidivism, represents a matter of crucial importance, directly impacting the personal liberty of the suspect. The Supreme Court of Cassation, with its recent judgment no. 30405 of 13/06/2025 (filed on 08/09/2025), has provided a clarifying interpretation on the value of prior lack of convictions, reaffirming a fundamental principle that deserves careful analysis.

The decision, rendered by the First Criminal Section and presided over by Dr. DE MARZO GIUSEPPE, with Dr. VALIANTE PAOLO as rapporteur, rejected the appeal against the order of the Court of Liberty of Catanzaro of 18/02/2025, which had confirmed a precautionary measure against the defendant L. M. The core of the issue revolved around the relevance of the absence of prior criminal records in relation to the precautionary need for the risk of recidivism.

The Risk of Recidivism: A Pillar of Precautionary Measures

Personal precautionary measures, governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP), are instruments aimed at preventing certain dangerous conduct or ensuring the purposes of the trial. Among the precautionary needs provided for by art. 274, paragraph 1, letter c) CPP, the «risk that the defendant commits serious crimes using weapons or other means of personal violence or with other means of violence or directed against the constitutional order or organized crime offenses or of the same type as the one for which proceedings are brought» stands out. It is in this context that the assessment of the social dangerousness of the suspect and their propensity to repeat criminal conduct is placed.

Lack of Prior Convictions: Not an Absolute Veto, but a Rebuttable Presumption

Often, the absence of prior criminal records is invoked as a strong argument in favor of the non-application or revocation of precautionary measures. However, the Court of Cassation has repeatedly clarified that a lack of prior convictions does not constitute an automatic pass, but rather a presumption that can be overcome. The judgment in question aligns with this established case law, providing an important clarification:

For the purpose of assessing the existence of the precautionary need for the risk of recidivism and the choice of the coercive measure concretely adequate to satisfy it, the prior lack of convictions of the suspect has the value of a mere rebuttable presumption of minimal social dangerousness, which can well be overcome by valuing the intensity of the risk of recidivism deducible from the ascertained methods of the conduct concretely held.

This maxim is of fundamental importance. It means that, although a lack of prior convictions suggests lower social dangerousness (a