Calling an ambulance without a genuine need constitutes an obstruction of a public service
The application of the ‘minor offence’ defence was also ruled out because the calls had been made during the pandemic emergency
Anyone who calls an ambulance without a genuine need risks conviction for disruption of a public service. The Court of Cassation has thus upheld the charge, which carries a sentence of up to one year’s imprisonment, against a ‘malingerer’ who, on two separate occasions, had alarmed the 118 emergency service unnecessarily, resulting, on only one occasion, the dispatch of an ambulance.
The shortage of doctors and nurses
The judges reject even the possibility of applying the provision on minor offences, as set out in Article 131-bis of the Criminal Code, which allows for impunity, because the two calls to 118 were made during the pandemic emergency. And so, at a time when there was a shortage of doctors and nurses, whilst the healthcare workers on duty were forced to work gruelling shifts. The defendant’s defence argument was rejected; he had claimed that the impact on the service had been minimal, given that he lived near the A&E department and the vehicle had promptly returned to base once it had been established that the patient’s condition did not require any medical intervention.
The Supreme Court explains, in fact, that for the offence, as set out in Article 340 of the Criminal Code, to be committed, it is not necessary for the conduct – specifically, two calls on two consecutive days – to result in the interruption of the service; it is sufficient that its regularity is disrupted, even if only temporarily. Otherwise, it would be difficult for a judge to bring charges in a sector as broad as that of public health, if the charge were to be contingent upon a complete shutdown, even if only locally.
‘Insolent’ behaviour
In the case under consideration, regardless of the immediate return of the staff, it is clear that the two ‘false’ alerts had disrupted the work of the healthcare staff. This behaviour was branded by the judges of the Court of Cassation as ‘insolent’, not least given that the defendant had himself previously worked as a social and healthcare worker.
The appellant is also precluded from invoking the defence of minor offensiveness of the offence, by virtue of which the legislature ‘exempts’ the offender from punishment, having assessed the conduct, the intent and the insignificance of the damage. These circumstances are viewed unfavourably due to the emergency context in which the events took place: in a situation that was already on the brink of collapse, owing to the well-known shortage of personnel and resources at public health service.
