Videoconferencing and Nullity of the Sentence: Analysis of Judgment No. 1527 of 2024

Judgment No. 1527 of November 28, 2024, issued by the Court of Appeal of Reggio Calabria, offers an important reflection on the procedural dynamics related to the use of videoconferencing. In particular, it examines the issue of the defendant's absence during the reading of the ruling and the consequences of such absence on the validity of the sentence. The topic is particularly relevant in a judicial context increasingly influenced by digital technologies.

The Case and the Court's Decision

In this case, the defendant, G. M., was in a situation of legitimate impediment to resuming the videoconferencing connection, which made it impossible for him to attend the reading of the ruling. The Court established that this absence does not lead to the nullity of the sentence, emphasizing that the reading of the ruling is a procedural activity closely related to the hearing and therefore does not interrupt its course.

Reading of the ruling following the deliberation - Videoconferencing - Interruption - Absence due to legitimate impediment of the defendant to resume the connection - Nullity of the sentence - Exclusion - Reasons. The subsequent absence due to legitimate impediment of the defendant to resume the previously interrupted videoconferencing connection, which does not allow him to attend the reading of the ruling, does not result in the nullity of the sentence, as the reading of the ruling is a procedural activity that is part of the same hearing, which continues without interruption between the conclusion of the discussion and this compliance. (In the reasoning, the Court highlighted that, in any case, the violation of the rules on the publication of the sentence is not accompanied by the provision of procedural sanctions).

Legal Implications and Regulatory References

The Court's decision is based on a series of articles from the New Code of Criminal Procedure, such as Article 604, paragraph 5, and Article 175, which outline the methods of publishing sentences and their validity. The Court clarified that the defendant's absence does not affect the validity of the sentence, as there are no specific procedural sanctions for the violation of the publication rules.

  • Art. 604, paragraph 5: Concerns the publication of the sentence.
  • Art. 175: Defines the methods of the defendant's participation.
  • Art. 525: Emphasizes the importance of procedural continuity.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 1527 of 2024 represents an important clarification for the legal world, especially in an era where videoconferences have become increasingly common in trials. It reaffirms that the absence of the defendant, in cases of legitimate impediment, does not compromise the validity of the sentence, thereby ensuring procedural continuity and greater flexibility in respecting the rights of defendants. This approach could mark a turning point in legal practices, inviting deeper reflection on the adaptation of regulations to new technologies.

Bianucci Law Firm