Commentary on Judgment No. 23288 of 2023: Written Procedure and Plea Bargain on Appeal

The recent judgment No. 23288 of 2023 by the Court of Appeal of Rome offers important insights into the use of written procedure and plea bargains on appeal, highlighting the delicate balance between the speed of proceedings and the right to adversarial debate. In particular, the Court declared inadmissible the appeal concerning a request made in writing, emphasizing that even in the case of rejection of such a request, the proceedings continue with written procedure.

Plea Bargain on Appeal and Written Procedure

The plea bargain on appeal, governed by Article 599-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allows parties to agree on a reduced sentence in exchange for waiving grounds for appeal. This simplified procedure was introduced to ensure greater efficiency of the judicial system, but it must never compromise the fundamental rights of the parties involved.

The Court clarified that, if a plea bargain request is made in writing and an oral hearing has not been requested, the judgment will proceed with written procedure. This means that the decision will be made based on written submissions, without the need for a hearing. However, the Court ruled that this does not infringe the right to adversarial debate, reiterating the importance of ensuring that submissions are duly considered.

Infringement of Adversarial Debate and Legal References

Plea bargain on appeal - Request made in writing - Rejection - Continuation of proceedings with written procedure concerning the conclusions submitted in writing as a secondary request - Infringement of adversarial debate - Exclusion. In the context of a plea bargain with waiver of grounds for appeal pursuant to art. 599-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the request is made in writing without a request for oral proceedings, the proceedings are conducted with written procedure even if the aforementioned request is rejected, without this constituting an infringement of the right to adversarial debate, and the Court of Appeal decides having regard to the conclusions submitted as a secondary request by the parties in the plea bargain application.

This summary, although technical, highlights a fundamental principle: the efficiency of proceedings must not sacrifice the parties' right to a fair trial. The Court also referred to previous case law that has addressed similar issues, confirming an interpretive line aimed at ensuring the speed of proceedings without compromising defense rights.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 23288 of 2023 represents an important contribution to case law on criminal law and appeal procedures. It underscores the need for a balance between the speed of proceedings and respect for the fundamental rights of the parties. In an ever-evolving legal landscape, it is crucial for legal professionals to understand the implications of the Court's decisions and to be prepared to handle plea bargain requests in a manner that always preserves the rights of all parties involved.