Court of Cassation Judgment No. 37428, decided on May 4 and filed on September 13, 2023, concerns a person under house arrest who was authorized, at specified times, to reach an addiction treatment centre by the shortest route. During that time window, the person was caught committing theft elsewhere in the city.
The permitted route limits the authorization
According to the headnote, departing from the permitted route to commit an offense also constitutes escape. Permission to leave for a specified destination does not provide freedom to travel anywhere throughout the authorized time window.
No purpose to commit an additional offense is required
Article 385 of the Criminal Code also applies to an accused person under house arrest who leaves the designated place. Unauthorized departure may constitute escape without any purpose to commit an additional offense: theft is part of this particular case, not a general requirement of escape.
House arrest is custodial: Article 284(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure treats the accused as being in pretrial custody. The principle discussed concerns the departure and deviation described, not every breach of a condition of the measure.
