Private Violence: Commentary on Judgment No. 20365 of 2023

Judgment No. 20365 of 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers a profound reflection on a delicate and crucial issue in the Italian legal landscape: intimidating conduct by the public prosecutor towards persons informed about the facts. This ruling not only analyzes the boundary between the legitimate action of the judicial authority and abuse of power but also establishes important legal precedents for future interpretations.

Context of the Judgment

The case concerns the defendant M. R., who was subjected to conduct by the public prosecutor that raised questions about the legality of the interrogation methods. Specifically, the Court found that the public prosecutor used threats and intimidation to compel M. R. to provide statements regarding ongoing investigations, suggesting immediate arrest in case of reticence.

Intimidating and threatening conduct by the public prosecutor towards a person informed about the facts - Suggestion of immediate arrest in case of reticence - Attempted private violence - Configurability - Existence. The conduct of the public prosecutor aimed at compelling the examined subject, pursuant to art. 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as a person informed about the facts, to make statements on ongoing investigations, confirming the prosecution's assertion, by intimidating and verbally abusive means, suggesting immediate arrest as an inevitable and immediate consequence of their reticence, constitutes the crime of attempted private violence. (In its reasoning, the Court also excluded the applicability of the justification under art. 51 of the Criminal Code, even from the perspective of culpable excess, in the face of conduct carried out in violation of procedural rules foundational to the legal duty assumed to have exculpatory effect).

Legal Implications

This judgment is relevant not only for the specific case of M. R. but also for the broader application of criminal law in Italy. In particular, the Court excluded the applicability of art. 51 of the Criminal Code, which provides for justification for a public official acting in accordance with the law. The Court affirmed that the public prosecutor's conduct in this case cannot be justified, as it was committed in violation of procedural rules.

• Private violence is defined by art. 610 of the Criminal Code, which punishes anyone who compels another, through violence or threat, to do, not do, or tolerate something.
• The public prosecutor has a duty to conduct investigations in compliance with the rules, avoiding conduct that could be interpreted as intimidating.
• The protection of the rights of persons informed about the facts is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 20365 of 2023 represents an important step in protecting individual rights within the criminal process. It clarifies that the use of intimidating conduct by the public prosecutor is unacceptable and can constitute the crime of attempted private violence. This ruling underscores the importance of a balance between the exercise of judicial authority's powers and the safeguarding of citizens' rights, contributing to a clearer and more respectful delineation of the boundaries of criminal action according to fundamental principles of justice.