When the precautionary custody order against the suspect for stalking can be canceled.

The Freedom Tribunal rejected the request for review by the suspect for the crime of persecutory acts.
The suspect appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging that the Review it had not taken into consideration the new reasons and the declarations of the injured person produced by the defense (following defensive investigations) of the opposite sign compared to what was reported by the victim of stalking in front of the judicial police.

The Tribunal of Freedom he had instead limited himself to assessing what the offended person said before the police, from whose declarations it emerged the existence of the facts attributed to the suspect, who had threatened the injured person with an unjust evil even trying to break into his home.

The defensive investigations.

On the other hand, another truth emerged from the subsequent statements of the injured person made to the defendant in the defense investigations.
First of all, the repeated conduct that the law requires for the configuration of the crime of stalking, having instead the conduct occurred in the space of only 12 hours.
Such conduct also would not have actually caused the victim of stalking a persistent and severe state of anxiety, nor would they have involved a change in the life habits of the injured person.

Basically, the constituent elements of the crime referred to inart. 612 bis of the Penal Code and consequently the precautionary needs of the suspect.

The Cassation in fact, having the Court of Review omitted to consider the further declarations of the injured person, thus incurring an evident lack of motivation (because the new reasons of defense were connected to these new declarations) cancels the contested order.
The Supreme Court specifies that the Freedom Tribunal will have to assess the reliability of the original ones statements from the victim of stalking, denied by the defensive investigations carried out by the defense.

How to properly carry out defensive investigations.

In another case, the Court considered the defensive investigations attached to the request for review null and void because the previous defender could only investigate the same investigation topics but, in asking the same questions that had already been asked by the Judicial Police, he could not return to the answers given to obtain different information because this would have integrated a violation of art. 391 bis cpp paragraph 4.

You can stay informed on legal news through our blog