Falzone Trial: Lawyer Files Cassation Appeal After 27 Years Imprisonment
Paolo Falzone, sentenced to 27 years for the Strépy-Bracquegnies tragedy, has filed an appeal to the Court of Cassation. His lawyer contests the intent to kill upheld by the assize court.
Paolo Falzone in cassation: defence contests intent to kill
Paolo Falzone is entering a new phase of judicial proceedings. Sentenced to 27 years imprisonment for the Strépy-Bracquegnies tragedy, the reckless driver has filed an appeal to the Court of Cassation, according to DHnet. The Court of Cassation will not retry the substance of the case: it will rule solely on the legality of the judgment rendered by the assize court.
It is on this strictly legal ground that Me Frank Discepoli, Falzone's lawyer, is building his challenge. In a nine-page document submitted to the Court of Cassation, he raises several points that he considers contrary to law.
Intent to kill at the heart of the dispute
The main grievance concerns the intent to kill charged against his client. The assize court held that the vehicle had been used as a weapon. For the defence, this does not, however, demonstrate that Paolo Falzone was aware that he was acting with such intent.
In legal terms, Me Discepoli argues that "the intention to cause death is not established". According to him, no deliberate decision to strike the group can be attributed to his client, contrary to what the judgment finds.
The defence also contests the voluntary nature of the collision itself. For the lawyer, the impact was not deliberately caused by Paolo Falzone, but resulted from an unintentional hypothetical situation.
Braking contested
Another central argument rests on a contradiction that the defence believes it has detected between the assize court's reasoning and the automotive expert's report.
The judgment invokes the absence of braking before impact to establish intent to kill. However, according to Me Discepoli, the expert does mention emergency braking—late and insufficient, certainly, but real braking nonetheless. The report specifies that this braking occurred 1.19 seconds before impact, a detail that the defence considers decisive.
The lawyer draws a direct conclusion: "When one intends to kill, one does not brake." It is on this reasoning that the defence relies to contest the logic followed by the assize court.
Next stage: admissibility
The Court of Cassation must first rule on the admissibility of the appeal. If it is accepted, it will examine the various legal grounds raised by Me Discepoli. No hearing date has been communicated at this stage.
Source: DHnet