The court found that the homeless man was acting
"in a state of need" so his actions could not be considered offences
Stealing small amounts of food to stave off hunger
is not a crime, Italy's highest court of appeal has ruled.
Judges overturned a theft conviction against Roman
Ostriakov after he stole cheese and sausages worth $4.50 from a supermarket.
Mr Ostriakov, a homeless man of Ukrainian
background, had taken the food "in the face of the immediate and essential
need for nourishment", the court of cassation decided.
Therefore it was not a crime, it said.
A fellow customer informed the store's security in
2011, when Mr Ostriakov attempted to leave a Genoa supermarket with two pieces
of cheese and a packet of sausages in his pocket but paid only for breadsticks.
In 2015, Mr Ostriakov was convicted of theft and
sentenced to six months in jail and a $100 fine.
'Right and pertinent' ruling, say papers
For the judges, the "right to survival prevails
over property", said an op-ed in La Stampa newspaper (in Italian).
In times of economic hardship, the court of
cassation's judgement "reminds everyone that in a civilised country not
even the worst of men should starve".
An opinion piece in Corriere Della Sera says
statistics suggest 615 people are added to the ranks of the poor in Italy every
day - it was "unthinkable that the law should not take note of
reality".
It criticised the fact that a case concerning the
taking of goods worth under $5 went through three rounds in the courts before
being thrown out.
The "historic" ruling is "right and
pertinent", said Italiaglobale.it - and derives from a concept that
"informed the Western world for centuries - it is called humanity".
However, his case was sent to appeal on the grounds
that the conviction should be reduced to attempted theft and the sentence cut,
as Mr Ostriakov had not left the shop premises when he was caught.
Italy's Supreme Court of Cassation, which reviews
only the application of the law and not the facts of the case, on Monday made a
final and definitive ruling overturning the conviction entirely.
Stealing small quantities of food to satisfy a vital
need for food did not constitute a crime, the court wrote.
"The condition of the defendant and the
circumstances in which the seizure of merchandise took place prove that he took
possession of that small amount of food in the face of an immediate and
essential need for nourishment, acting therefore in a state of necessity,"
wrote the court.
*Source BBC*
No comments:
Post a Comment