Judgment No. 16822 of 2022: Home Detention and Late Request in Hearing
The judgment No. 16822 of December 20, 2022, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides significant insights regarding alternative measures to detention, particularly concerning home detention and the procedures for requesting it during hearings. The case in question involves the defendant F. P. and focuses on the validity of the home detention request made as a subordinate to the probation request.
The Legal Context
The Court highlights that, concerning alternative measures to detention, it is possible to formulate the request for home detention during the hearing, even if it is presented as subordinate to the probation request. This orientation is based on the principle that the necessary conditions for both measures are common and do not require separate verification.
- Alternative measures to detention are governed by Law No. 354 of July 26, 1975, particularly in Article 47.
- The judgment emphasizes the importance of a positive prognosis, which must be evaluated based on the specific circumstances of the case.
- A crucial point of the case concerns the proposal to revoke probation due to violations of the prescriptions, which led to the request for home detention.
Analysis of the Judgment
01 President: MOGINI STEFANO. Rapporteur: CASA FILIPPO. Defendant: PATTARO FAUSTO. P.M. KATE TASSONE. (Conf.) Annuls with referral, VENEZIA SURVEILLANCE COURT, 25/05/2022 563000 PREVENTIVE AND PUNISHMENT INSTITUTES (PENITENTIARY SYSTEM) - Alternative measures to detention - Home detention - Lateness of the request made in the hearing subordinate to the probation - Exclusion - Case. Regarding alternative measures to detention, the request for home detention made in the hearing as subordinate to the probation request is admissible, provided that the existence of the legal conditions is verified, as the prerequisite related to formulating a positive prognosis is common to both measures and does not entail a separate verification (Case in which the request was made in the hearing set to discuss the proposal to revoke probation due to repeated violations of the prescriptions).
This judgment reaffirms a principle already established in previous decisions, such as No. 16442 of 2010 and No. 21274 of 2002, which confirm the possibility of a late request for home detention. It is essential that the defendant demonstrates meeting the legal conditions for the admissibility of such a measure.
Conclusions
In conclusion, judgment No. 16822 of 2022 represents an important clarification for legal practitioners and defendants wishing to access alternative measures to detention. The possibility of submitting a request for home detention subordinate to the probation, even in a revocation context, is an opportunity that must be considered carefully, as it highlights the flexibility of the legal system in responding to the social reintegration needs of individuals.
