Pretend blind people, convictions quashed: it is irrelevant that they can move about independently
The judges have ordered a retrial to assess the extent of the visual impairment
It is not enough for INPS inspectors or the police to put in writing the extraordinary ability of a blind person to move about as if they could see in order to claim that they are a fraudulent disability claimant. In fact, blind people have long developed an ability to perceive their position in space that is superior to that of sighted people. A sixth sense that can enable them to find their way around with a certain ease. A blind person who carries out their daily tasks with ease cannot, therefore, be considered an impostor.
The Court of Cassation has thus upheld the appeal lodged by a group of blind people who had been convicted, at two levels of jurisdiction, for fraud because, in the opinion of the trial judges, they were pocketing the benefits in a fraudulent manner.
The importance of a sound scientific basis
A verdict reached without a sound scientific basis, indeed, despite tests such as the PEV test which, for some, had demonstrated a complete absence of visual acuity, due to a lack of response to the signal from the retina transmitted to the brain centres.
Whilst acknowledging the actual existence of the eye conditions and despite the state of total blindness as defined by the law 138/2001, as certified by public authorities, the judges considered that the appellants’ ability to move about whilst carrying out their usual activities was neither compatible with blindness nor explainable by their ability to compensate using their other senses.
The judges of the Court of Cassation criticised the decision for having disregarded the defence’s arguments and the request for the defence to be allowed to comment on an ad hoc expert report. The appellants had, in particular, referred to Article 2 of Law 138 of 2001. This provision provides a technical and legal definition of the ‘status of total blindness, based on objective medico-legal criteria and not on the individual’s absolute inability to find their way around or to carry out any activity of daily living independently’.
