Commentary on Judgment No. 48556 of 14/11/2023: Plea Bargaining and Accessory Administrative Sanctions

Judgment No. 48556 of November 14, 2023, represents a significant landmark in criminal law, particularly concerning the institution of plea bargaining and accessory administrative sanctions. The Court of Cassation, with this ruling, addressed the validity of agreements between parties regarding the application of sanctions, highlighting how recent legislative amendments have profoundly impacted the matter.

The Regulatory Framework and the 2022 Amendments

Article 444, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure underwent significant modifications with Legislative Decree No. 150 of 2022, which introduced new possibilities for the judge concerning accessory penalties in cases of plea bargaining. Specifically, the judge can now decide not to apply such penalties or to limit their duration. However, the Court clarified that any clause stipulating the duration and content of accessory administrative sanctions must be considered as if it were not written, as the application of these sanctions is not at the parties' discretion.

The Specific Case and its Implications

Art. 444, paragraph 1, Code of Criminal Procedure - Amendment introduced by Art. 25, paragraph 1, letter a), no. 1), Legislative Decree No. 150 of 2022 - Agreement on the application of accessory administrative sanctions - Irrelevance - Reasons - Factual situation. In the context of plea bargaining, even following the amendment of Art. 444, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced by Art. 25, paragraph 1, letter a), no. 1), Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, No. 150, which provided for the possibility of requesting the judge not to apply accessory penalties or to apply them for a determined duration, the clause determining the content and duration of accessory administrative sanctions must be deemed as if it were not written, as their application is not at the parties' discretion. (Factual situation in which the Court deemed the judgment applying the penalty for the crime of vehicular homicide aggravated by the state of impairment due to the use of alcohol or narcotic substances, where the judge, disregarding the parties' agreement which provided for the temporary suspension of the driving license, had ordered, ex officio, the more severe sanction of revocation of the driving license, provided for automatically by Art. 222, paragraph 2, of the Highway Code, to be free from censure).

In the case examined, the Court confirmed the legitimacy of the judge's decision to apply the revocation of the driving license, despite the agreement between the parties stipulating a less severe sanction. This aspect underscores the importance of protecting public order and road safety, highlighting how the legislator intends to ensure that more serious sanctions are applied in situations of particular gravity, such as in cases of vehicular homicide offenses.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 48556 of 14/11/2023 offers a clear and detailed view of recent legislative developments regarding plea bargaining and accessory administrative sanctions. It reiterates that, notwithstanding the parties' wishes, the judge has the power to decide on the severity of sanctions, especially in situations involving public safety. This principle not only strengthens the deterrent function of criminal law but also ensures that decisions are oriented towards guaranteeing justice and collective security.