Escape and House Arrest: Commentary on Judgment No. 37428 of 2023

Judgment No. 37428, filed on September 13, 2023, by the Court of Cassation, offers important insights into the matter of house arrest and the subversion of precautionary measures. In particular, the Court ruled on the case of an individual, M. S., who was under house arrest and authorized to leave at specific times to go to a addiction treatment center (Sert). However, during that same time frame, the defendant committed a theft in another part of the city, raising significant legal questions.

The Regulatory Context

Italian law, particularly Article 385 of the Criminal Code, governs escape, defining the conduct that can constitute this offense. The crucial aspect of the judgment concerns the interpretation of the objective element of the escape conduct. The Court clarified that simple departure from one's domicile does not in itself constitute escape, unless there is an intention to commit a crime.

OBJECTIVE (MATERIAL) ELEMENT - House Arrest - Authorization to Leave Coerced Domicile - Departure from Permitted Route to Commit a Crime - Escape - Existence - Case Law. The crime of escape is constituted by the conduct of a person who, being subject to the measure of house arrest, with authorization to be absent on certain days and times to reach specific locations via the shortest route, departs from the permitted route to commit a crime. (Case concerning an inmate caught by judicial police while, during the same time frame in which he was authorized to go to the Sert, committing a theft in another part of the city).

Analysis of the Case

In the case at hand, the individual had been authorized to go to the Sert but decided to deviate from the permitted route to commit a theft. This behavior not only violates the provisions of the house arrest order but also constitutes the crime of escape, as clarified by the Court. It is interesting to note that the Court of Cassation referred to previous case law, thereby reinforcing its position on the need for a strict interpretation of the rules concerning escape.

• House arrest: precautionary measures alternative to detention.
• Escape: criminally relevant conduct in case of violation of imposed conditions.
• Importance of respecting authorizations: the risk of criminal consequences.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 37428 of 2023 represents an important reference point for case law on house arrest and escape. It emphasizes that the authority to leave one's domicile should not be understood as absolute freedom, but as a permit that must be exercised in compliance with the established conditions. The Court reiterated that any deviation from the authorized route, with the intent to commit a crime, constitutes the offense of escape, drawing attention to the importance of legality and adherence to rules within the context of precautionary measures.