Judgment No. 34107 of 2023: Prohibition of House Arrest for Convicted Fugitives

Judgment No. 34107 of June 15, 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important reflection on personal precautionary measures, particularly house arrest for those convicted of escape. This ruling is part of the legal debate concerning the application of coercive measures and related restrictions, providing significant insights for both legal professionals and citizens.

The Regulatory Context

The Court's decision is based on two fundamental articles of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Article 284, paragraph 5-bis, and Article 275, paragraph 2-bis. The former establishes a prohibition on granting house arrest for those convicted of escape, while the latter stipulates that pre-trial detention in prison cannot be applied when the imposed sentence does not exceed three years.

• Art. 284, paragraph 5-bis: provides for the presumption of inadequacy of house arrest for those convicted of escape.
• Art. 275, paragraph 2-bis: establishes the conditions for the application of pre-trial detention.

In its ruling, the Court states that the special rule under Art. 284 prevails over the general provision under Art. 275, thus creating a clear regulatory framework: for those with previous convictions for escape, house arrest cannot be granted.

The Ruling's Headnote

Previous conviction for escape - Prohibition of granting house arrest pursuant to Art. 284, paragraph 5-bis, Code of Criminal Procedure - Relationship with Art. 275, paragraph 2-bis, Code of Criminal Procedure - Prevalence of the prohibition on granting house arrest - Reasons. In matters of personal precautionary measures, the rebuttable presumption of inadequacy of house arrest for a person convicted of escape, provided for by Art. 284, paragraph 5-bis, Code of Criminal Procedure, being a special rule, prevails over the general provision under Art. 275, paragraph 2-bis, second period, Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which the precautionary measure of detention in prison cannot be applied when the judge believes that the imposed sentence will not exceed three years.

This headnote highlights the importance of the specialty of the rule concerning escape, emphasizing that criminal records directly influence the possibility of applying alternative measures to detention.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

Judgment No. 34107 of 2023 has several practical implications:

• It strengthens the position of jurisprudence aimed at preventing recidivism in the crime of escape.
• It clarifies the hierarchy of norms regarding precautionary measures, emphasizing the need for a rigorous approach towards those convicted of escape.
• It may influence future judicial decisions on precautionary measures, creating a significant precedent.

Conclusions

In summary, Judgment No. 34107 of 2023 represents an important step forward in strengthening precautionary measures against those who have already shown a propensity to escape. The Court of Cassation has clarified that, in the presence of previous convictions for escape, house arrest cannot be granted, highlighting the principle of specialty of the rule. This ruling will contribute to outlining a clearer and stricter framework regarding the application of precautionary measures, in the interest of safety and justice.