Cyclists off the Murazzi – a second appeal for Cherici: assess his dependence on the group

A second appeal to reduce the sentence for Sara Chierici, the only adult in the gang who, in 2023, hurled a bicycle weighing 23 kilos from the Murazzi in Turin. As a result of this reckless act, a young medical student, who was queuing to enter a nightclub, was left quadriplegic, with irreversible neurological damage, whilst another person standing next to him sustained minor injuries. Chierici had already had her sentence reduced from 16 to 14 years on appeal. But now there are new assessments to be made to further reduce the sentence. The Court of Cassation has filed the grounds on which, last May, it upheld two of the three arguments put forward by Sara Chierici’s defence team.

The request to exclude the morally significant contribution made by the defendant towards reinforcing the criminal intent of the perpetrators, and thus towards the commission of the attempted murder, was rejected; instead, it was held that this constituted a mere ‘complicity’ which is not punishable. The judges, however, take the dynamics of the action into account.

Cherici, ‘after rejoining the other young people, accompanied the group during the phase in which the bicycle was identified and taken, followed the perpetrators whilst they were carrying the bicycle towards the parapet, remained in the immediate vicinity at the moment of the throw and took part in the subsequent collective escape’. Conduct to be assessed in the context of group dynamics, which was deemed to have reinforced ‘the shared criminal intent and to have increased the sense of mutual support in carrying out the offence’. The Supreme Court clarified that the liability of the appellant was not based solely on her presence at the scene of the offence, nor on the abstract duty to distance herself from the actions of others, ‘but on the overall significance of conduct that was outwardly perceived as endorsement of the joint course of action’.

On the other hand, the grounds for criticising the appeal judges’ decision not to grant the defence’s requests to reopen the trial in order to obtain the medical records relating to the psychotherapy treatment which the defendant underwent at an Centre for Adolescents for the Prevention of Youth Distress or to order a court-appointed expert report on this matter. The appeal judges’ decision to reject mitigating circumstances on the grounds of a lack of remorse was also incorrect, as this cannot be considered relevant if it stems from a defence strategy rather than a negative personality trait. The defence had highlighted the contradiction into which the appeal judges had fallen when assessing the psychologist’s statements.

In the Court of Appeal’s view, the offence was particularly serious, precisely because of the typical characteristics of gang activity , not to mention that the expert witness herself had highlighted how the defendant was highly susceptible to the influence of group dynamics . The fact that the offence was committed in accordance with the patterns of group behaviour was, in the view of the trial judges, a factor sufficient to justify the refusal to grant general mitigating circumstances.