This seems to be consistent with one of Vixen's claims, but I may not understand it. Vixen's claim was that the ISC acted illegally when it set aside the AK/RS conviction because all it could do was refer the case for further review to a lower court.
It seems doubtful that this was the case since it seems like the ISC didn't refer the case to a lower court and there doesn't seem to be some great constitutional dispute going on in Italy right now over the issue.
But maybe Vixen was right on this? Or maybe I don't know what that stuff Grinder quoted meant?
I wonder about this in the US. Can the supreme court find an individual innocent? Certainly courts can decide that jeopardy has attached and since a guilty verdict didn't happen the case is over against an individual. But could the US Supreme court decide on the merits of the evidence that somebody was innocent and find for a defendant in such a way that they were officially found innocent?
AIUI the
only other time section 530 para 2 has been used by ISC to acquit a conviction was the Andreotti case. Andreotti had been a powerful mover and shaker in Italian politics since post-war Italy and had over 40 years office, even had a hotline to the Pope. He was a skilled diplomat, so much so, it was charged he even negotiated with mafia bosses.
Charges were slapped on him and he was convicted. Bongiornio convinced ISC to acquit him, and this they did, using the above article.
So looks like doctor's son Raff is now elevated to the heady heights of Italy's so-called greatest statesman. Well, Raff always did brag he was "honour" coded, (see Roberto Saviano for more details of this "code" in
Gomorrah). Papa pulled it off. We don't know how - Bongiornio is probably the greasy palm here - but he did. Perhaps some of these guys on Santa Dominica beach.
For now.
Think about it. For example, guy robs a bank. The trial assesses the evidence and witnesses, finds "guilty" at a trial.
Defendant appeals on points of law.
Appeal court rejects appeal after an appeal hearing (assuming it is ever allowed; in the UK, very few are, as it is on limited points only, so HM Courts & Tribunals, makes sure all is watertight so appeal becomes difficult to obtain. Of course, in Italy, appeal is automatic.)
The defendant, appeals the
appeal, the merits hearing already appealed and judged. (In England & Wales, permission of the High Court is needed to appeal further; Italy, it's automatic.)
Now here's the thing: the supreme court is reviewing
the appeal court decision, not the lower criminal court.
Therefore,
ipso facto, it cannot declare the defendant suddenly "not guilty" (assuming no "new evidence" not known of as of time of original trial, as is the case here). It is intuitively obvious it should be remitted back to the appeal court, which can extend the original trial (only in Italy!) to assess the issue in dispute and the legal point or perversity at variance.
What the Fifth Chambers have effectively done is
change the law, something that is not in their remit or jurisdiction. In the UK, new laws have to go through parliament, or the House of Lords. I expect Italy has a similar legislature.
The Fifth Chamber did not have the power to acquit.
Marilyn Manson manga - lovin' "knife boy" Raff is hardly Andreotti.
This makes Italy the laughing stock of the world.
