Analysis of Judgment Cass. pen., Section V, n. 43625 of 2022: Recognition of Non-Mention of Conviction

The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation, Criminal Section V, n. 43625 of 2022, focuses on a crucial aspect of Italian criminal law: the recognition of the benefit of non-mention of conviction in the criminal record certificate. This issue is of particular relevance to defendants, as the presence of a conviction in their record can have detrimental effects on their personal and professional lives.

The Case Under Appeal

In the case at hand, the defendant A.A. had been convicted of offences provided for by articles 624 and 625 of the criminal code. The Court of Appeal of Messina, while having reformed the first-instance judgment limited to the amount of the penalty, had denied the benefit of non-mention of conviction, providing insufficient grounds for the decision.

• The appellant appealed the decision, alleging a flaw in the reasoning and demonstrating that his request for non-mention had been correctly argued.
• The Court of Cassation upheld the appeal, highlighting the erroneous denial by the Court of Appeal.

Legal Principles Underlying the Judgment

The Supreme Court recalled a consolidated principle: if a defendant explicitly requests the benefit of non-mention of conviction, the judge is obliged to provide grounds for their decision. The lack of such reasoning can constitute a defect in legitimacy.

The defendant, lacking prior criminal convictions and with documented unemployment, demonstrated the conditions for the recognition of the benefit.

Pursuant to art. 175 of the criminal code, the defendant is entitled to this benefit, provided that the foreseen conditions are met, such as the absence of prior criminal convictions and a situation of economic difficulty.

Conclusions

Judgment n. 43625 of 2022 represents an important step forward in the protection of defendants' rights. It underscores the importance of adequate reasoning by judges in the application of norms, ensuring a fair balance between the repression of crimes and the safeguarding of human dignity. The Court of Cassation has demonstrated its willingness to intervene to correct decisions that, while legitimate, may be unjust if not adequately reasoned.