A carabiniere who warns of an inspection at a building site reveals a confidential piece of information
The tip-off was accompanied by a call to keep undocumented workers away. The uniform has been tarnished by a revelation concerning an issue of great social significance such as health and safety at work
Key points
Eight months’ imprisonment for disclosure of official secretsor - with a suspended sentence - for the Chief Marshal of the Carabinieri who warned the contractor of an imminent inspection at the building site. He also urged him to keep undocumented workers away. According to the Court of Cassation, this conduct brings the uniform into disrepute, because the officer’s ‘tip-off’ concerned one of the issues with the greatest social impact: health and safety at work. The offence committed revealed ‘a lack of scruples on the part of an individual holding an institutional role’, as well as indicating the severity of the intent. These factors carry greater weight than the appellant’s clean criminal record and his admission of responsibility.
In the wiretaps, the phrase is the crux of the matter
Hence the confirmation of a sentence deemed by the defence to be too severe. The appellant’s attempt to deny the applicability of the rule on official secrecy – regarding the disclosure of information he had learnt by chance and not by virtue of his role – was unsuccessful. The defence also argued that it was not possible to use the intercepted phrase, which pinned the marshal down on his responsibilities: ‘I’ve heard through the grapevine that the local health authority is due to come tomorrow’. A conversation recorded during interception operations ordered for another set of proceedings. For the Supreme Court, however, this is irrelevant, because the recording containing the information given to the businessman was to be considered part of the offence.
The joint ASL-Carabinieri inspection
A concept that encompasses not only material things, but also immaterial ones, such as the conversation and the medium on which it is recorded. The argument that the appellant was not the holder of the secret by virtue of his office – a necessary condition for the offence to be committed – but had learnt of it by chance, was also rejected. The trial judges, however, had already correctly established – the Court notes – that the planned inspection of the building sites was not the exclusive responsibility of the competent local health authority. Indeed, the inspection had taken place as part of a joint operation carried out by ASL inspectors together with officers from the local Carabinieri station.
