Section 24: Place of confinement, and confinement elsewhere

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 4676/2564 (2021)

   Under Sections 23 and 24, the court may substitute confinement for imprisonment and order it served at the defendants' own homes, attaching conditions such as electronic monitoring and a stay-at-home order.

   The court reduced the sentences to three months and changed imprisonment to confinement, ordering each defendant confined at their own home with an electronic monitoring device and a ban on leaving the residence for three months under Sections 23 and 24. The case illustrates home confinement with modern control conditions.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 4617/2549 (2006)

   The discretion under Section 24 paragraph two to order confinement at a person's residence applies only where that place is suitable to the type and condition of the person confined; the court may refuse home confinement when it is not.

   After confinement was substituted for imprisonment, the defendant asked to be confined at home. The Court held that although Section 24 paragraph two gives discretion to allow confinement at the person's own or another's residence, it must be a place the court finds suitable to the person's type and condition, and it declined to order home confinement on the facts.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.