Maltreatment, distance obligation at 800 metres if the allegations are serious
Yes to the tightening of the measure also imposed by the Code Red. But for a wrong stamp, approach ban and electronic bracelet revoked
The Court of Cassation gave the go-ahead to the approach prohibition at a distance of 800 metres from the offended person if particularly serious charges are pending on the suspect for family abuse. The Supreme Court thus dismissed, on this point, the appeal against the judge's order imposing on the suspect the obligation to keep a minimum distance of 800 and not 500 metres as, in the defence's view, provided for in Article 282-ter of the Criminal Code.
For the judges, however, the tightening was justified. The Gip had, in fact, emphasised the perseveranceof the ill-treatment and persecution to the detriment of the ex-girlfriend, which had been going on for months, with a crescendoin severity and frequency. A picture that led to a longer distance with the alleged victim, coupled with the obligation to leave immediately in the event of 'social contact'. On the other hand, the defence's complaint concerning the failure to indicate the off-limits places because they were habitually frequented by the offended person passed.
The judges of legitimacy recall, in fact, that in compliance with the principles of adequacy and proportionality, the judge is required to indicate them specifically. While 'in the case in which he deems necessary and sufficient only the measure of the obligation to keep at a distance from the offended person,' reads the judgment, 'he is not required to indicate the relevant places, as he may limit himself to determining the same.
Mistake in the stamp compromising protection
A strengthened protection that risks being compromised, however, because the decision is also annulled with regard to the provision of remote control with the electronic bracelet added in pen, with the stamp of a judge other than the one who had ordered the measure. An 'oversight' that hasnot insignificant consequences, because it entails the revocationof the application of the prohibition to approach the places frequented by the alleged victim and also of the modality ofremote control. Vices that - warns the Court of Cassation - could in any case be eliminated by issuing a new precautionary measure. A remedy that obviously takes time.
The New Code Red
It should be recalled that, after the amendments introduced by thenew Code Red, the judge is obliged to order the precautionary measure of the prohibition to approach places frequented by the offended person, together with the electronic bracelet. The Court of Cassation, in fact, in ruling 42892, ruled out that Article 283-ter revised by the so-called Roccella reform (Law 168/2023, paragraphs 1 and 2 ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure) leaves the judge with margins of discretion in applying only the precautionary measure of the distance - no less than 500 metres after the restyling of the Code in 2019 - without the electronic device.
