Italy. Four policemen that beat a journalist sentenced to one year’s imprisonment

Questo articolo è disponibile anche in:

For personal injury caused by negligence – Six years after the beating, the appeal trial was retried at the request of the Court of Cassation – More severe sentences than the 40 days imposed in the first instance, subsequently converted to a fine on appeal

OSSIGENO, June 6^th , 2025 – Six years after the events and after two more lenient sentences, which sparked criticism and protests and were deemed inadequate by the Italian Supreme Court, the Third Criminal Section of the Genoa Court of Appeal has issued a more just and balanced sentence for the four police officers deemed responsible for the serious injuries on May 23^rd  2019, in Genoa to “La Repubblica” journalist Stefano Origone, who was beaten by police officers while he was covering a protest against the decision to grant the extreme right-wing organisation Casapound permission to hold a rally in the heart of the Ligurian capital.

The journalist’s injuries were serious: fractured ribs and fingers, head trauma, and numerous bruises. Stefano Origone repeatedly stated that he shouted “I’m a journalist” during the attack, but without any restraint by the officers until someone who knew him intervened.

In the first instance, each of the four officers, choosing the fast-track trial (which involves a “reduction” of one-third of their sentence), were sentenced to 40 days in prison each. Then, in January 2023, the appeal process transformed the prison sentence into a fine of €2,582 each, plus a provisional €5,000 compensation. According to the appeal judges, the officers had acted in a situation of great agitation and confusion, mistakenly assuming that Stefano Origone was a violent protester.

The Second Judgment

Now, on January 13^th  2025, the Court of Appeal’s second ruling found the police officers guilty of the crime with which they were originally charged —concerted aggravated  assault of  journalist Stefano Origone. It sentenced each defendant to one year’s imprisonment, with a suspended sentence and no mention on their criminal record. Furthermore, the Court ordered the defendants jointly and severally to pay the court costs and reimburse the civil plaintiff’s legal fees, which amounted to over €6,600 between the Supreme Court and the referral proceedings.

An Important Judgment

This new ruling is more severe in terms of the prison sentence and the nature of the charges. It takes into account the real  gravity of the incident, without riling  the perpetrators, who benefitted from a suspended sentence and the avoidance of a criminal record. This ruling restores full credibility to the justice system and reaffirms that under no circumstances can an  attack by police charged with maintaining public order on an unarmed, identifiable journalist engaged in documenting events be justified.

The Genoa Court of Appeal was forced to reconsider its appeal after the Italian Supreme Court overturned that Court’s previous ruling on January 21^st  2024, requesting a new ruling. The Genoa Prosecutor’s Office had appealed the nature of the crime the officers were charged with, requesting that the injuries be considered malicious and not the result of an extreme  oversight.

The Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court, challenging the classification of the act as negligent and criticizing the improper use of the presumed  pardonable circumstance (i.e., reasonable  error in the use of force), undermined the basis of the appeal ruling. According to the Supreme Court, no concrete evidence justified the officers’ misdeed: Stefano Origone was unarmed, was not resisting, and was not displaying hostile behaviour. “Situational  confusion alone cannot justify the error of claiming the existence of exculpatory circumstances,” the judges wrote in their reasoning. “There was no concrete assessment of the proportionality and necessity of the use of force.”

The Supreme Court’s criticism of the lack of specific motivations for the officers’ behaviour is particularly severe. The Supreme Court emphasizes that each individual blow—especially those inflicted when the victim was already on the ground—would have required an objective and reasoned assessment of the alleged dangerousness of Stefano Origone.

Attorney Di Pietro: Press freedom must not be undermined

“This ruling is a sign of justice and an institutional warning,” commented Attorney Di Pietro. Andrea Di Pietro, coordinator of Ossigeno’s Legal Help Desk, said: “This represents a fundamental step in recognizing the criminal liability of those who, wearing a uniform, use unjustifiable violence against a journalist in the performance of his or her duty. It is an important step forward in affirming the principle that press freedom should never be undermined, not even in tense situations in public places. As a lawyer for Ossigeno per l’Informazione and a long-time advocate for press freedom, I believe this decision strengthens the constitutional protection of the right to information and serves as a warning against any abuse of power against journalists.”

Spampinato for Ossigeno: Concerns and Gaps to Fill

Ossigeno president Alberto Spampinato commented, “Six years to properly punish intentional injuries from police officers on public order duty to a journalist peacefully covering the proceedings of a public protest, is truly too long. It’s also worrying that it took the intervention of the Supreme Court to obtain a correct definition of the alleged crime. It’s even more worrying that all this happened in Genoa, the scene of the dramatic incidents at the 2001 G7 summit. 

Clearly, there’s more than one gap to fill in our society. First and foremost, there is the training of judges and law enforcement officers, if,  every time in the face of serious incidents, we have to struggle to rediscover the roles of the police and journalists in a democratic society. Moreover, this trial began in Genoa with the refusal of the civil action of Ossigeno and journalists’ organizations, seen as undue interference, when in fact that civil action  would have helped put the judgment on the right track from the outset. This long trial has highlighted problems that, erroneously, continue to be postponed. One of these concerns the identification of officers on duty, another the obvious identification of reporters during demonstrations, and yet another the definition of a shared code of conduct for police and journalists to be observed during demonstrations, as exists in other countries. Filling these gaps is increasingly necessary.” ASP/wt