Judgment No. 51388 of 2023: Unjustified Carrying of Objects Capable of Causing Harm and the Penalty of Fine

The judgment No. 51388 of November 24, 2023 represents an important ruling by the Court of Cassation in the field of criminal law, concerning the unjustified carrying of objects capable of causing harm. In particular, the Court expressed its views on the qualification of the act as of minor significance and the resulting penalty consequences, establishing a principle of significant interest for jurisprudence and legal practice.

The Regulatory Context

The fact under discussion falls within the regulatory framework of Law No. 110 of April 18, 1975, which governs the carrying of weapons and objects capable of causing harm. According to Article 4, paragraph 3, the offense can be qualified as of minor significance, a situation in which the law provides for the application of only the penalty of a fine. The Court clarified that the use of the term "may" does not imply discretion on the part of the judge, but rather an obligation to apply the lighter penalty in cases of minimal severity.

The Maxim of the Judgment

Unjustified carrying of objects capable of causing harm - Recognition of the minor significance of the act - Application of only the penalty of a fine - Necessity. In the context of unjustified carrying of objects capable of causing harm, the qualification of the act as of minor significance pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 3, last part, Law No. 110 of April 18, 1975, entails the application of only the penalty of a fine, regardless of the fact that the expression "may" was used in the formulation of the law, as the mitigating factor is justified by the disproportionate nature of the combined penalty of arrest and fine for acts characterized by minimal severity.

The ruling highlights how, in the case of unjustified carrying of objects capable of causing harm, the assessment of the minor significance of the act can lead to a more favorable penalty treatment for the defendant. This approach aligns with the principle of proportionality, which must always guide the application of penalties, particularly in cases of lesser severity.

Legal and Practical Implications

The implications of the judgment are manifold:

  • Recognition of the need for careful assessment of the severity of the act by judges.
  • Possibility of applying less burdensome penalties for acts of minor significance, promoting a fairer justice.
  • Strengthening the protection of the rights of defendants, through the application of penalties proportionate to the severity of the crime.

In a legal system that aims to ensure equity and justice, Judgment No. 51388 of 2023 represents an important step forward towards a more just and proportionate penalty treatment.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the ruling of the Court of Cassation offers an important reflection on the need for a proportional approach to criminal penalties, especially for minor offenses. The qualification of the act as of minor significance allows, in fact, to avoid the application of excessive penalties, fostering a more balanced justice that respects fundamental rights. This jurisprudential orientation could have a significant impact in the daily practice of criminal law, supporting a more humane and rational view of justice.

Bianucci Law Firm