In the latest Mati fire court verdict, the Greek tribunal has refused to recognise any mitigating circumstances for the ten individuals convicted in connection with the deadly 2018 wildfire. The judges unanimously rejected most pleas for leniency, while the vote on prior lawful conduct was decided by majority, with the court president expressing a dissenting view in favour of some defendants.
The Three-Member Misdemeanours Court of Appeal has refused to recognise any mitigating circumstances for the ten individuals convicted in connection with the deadly Mati wildfire.
The decision regarding prior lawful conduct was taken by majority vote, with the presiding judge arguing that this should have been granted in certain cases. All other mitigation pleas were unanimously rejected.
Following this decision, the prosecutor recommended a sentence of four years for each count of manslaughter and three years for each count of bodily harm for the convicted. For the resident of Penteli—on whose property the fire allegedly began—the prosecutor proposed that the original three-year sentence be upheld.
The prosecutor argued for these sentences based on “the extent of the harm, the deaths and serious injuries, the fact that the defendants were experienced and specialised officers, and the state’s expectation that such officials can make critical decisions affecting human lives.”
Prosecutor’s recommendation
Prosecutor Stamatina Perimeni had proposed recognition of prior lawful conduct as a mitigating factor for nine of the ten defendants, excluding one who does not have a clean criminal record. She rejected all other mitigation arguments submitted by the defence.
“All defendants sought recognition of lawful conduct; two cited non-base motives; some also requested leniency for good post-offence behaviour and delays in the judicial process not attributable to them,” said Perimeni.
Regarding prior lawful conduct, she noted that this requires positive behaviour and referred to case law from the Court of Cassation. On the issue of non-base motives, she stressed that the defendant must clearly set out the specific reasons for their actions to allow the court to assess whether the motives qualify as ‘non-base’.
“It’s not enough to simply claim the defendant behaved well after the offence. To recognise that mitigating factor, it must be shown they understood the consequences of their actions and experienced moral transformation. Just refraining from further crime is not enough—otherwise we’d be granting it to anyone who simply stopped offending,” she said.
On the issue of trial delays, Perimeni argued that the complexity of the case should be taken into account. Although seven years have passed since the incident, she said, “this is a particularly complex case with many defendants and a wide range of legal actions. Once the indictment was issued, proceedings moved quickly. None of the accused were remanded, so the delay hasn’t significantly harmed them, and there’s no reason to recognise it as a mitigating factor.”
Prior lawful conduct
“All the defendants demonstrated a long-standing lawful path, apart from the final defendant who has prior convictions,” the prosecutor said. “They had careers and good standing and no reason to question their integrity until July 2018. The mitigation should be granted to all except the last-Konstantinos Angelopoulos- on whose property the fire began.”
The court’s decision not to grant leniency marks a significant moment in a case that has haunted Greece for years. With over 100 lives lost and many more injured in one of the deadliest wildfires in the country’s history, the ruling reflects a focus on accountability rather than the prior records of those found guilty. Sentencing will now proceed without any mitigating factors.
