Collaborators AreaGender-based violence
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Absence of double jeopardy between habitual abuse and episodes of violence and threats
The case involves a romantic relationship of about two years (without cohabitation or children) in which, as proven, many episodes of violence and control occurred. There were physical assaults (such as shoving, hitting, neck grabbing, pinching, wrist holding, kicking, and slapping) and also verbal abuse and intimidation , with death threats or threats of serious harm. Additionally, a constant pattern of jealousy, control (especially at work), belittling, insults, and humiliation was described. All of this generated in the victim a sustained feeling of control, intimidation, and fear of reprisals, especially in the workplace.
Furthermore, the accused already had previous convictions for habitual abuse, threats, and several abuse offenses, and those sentences were still pending. The criminal court sentenced him to multiple prison terms for habitual abuse, threats, and physical abuse, also applying the aggravating circumstance of relapse. It also imposed a restraining order and a compensation for the moral damages caused.
The accused appealed first in appeal, but the Provincial Court confirmed the sentence. Then he went to the Supreme Court (SC), arguing, among other things, that the presumption of innocence was being violated, that the conviction was based "only" on the victim's testimony, that no injuries were observed in medical reports, and that there was "double jeopardy" (non bis in idem) because he was being convicted of habitual abuse and also for specific episodes of abuse and threats "for the same facts."
The SC dismisses the appeal. Regarding the alleged double jeopardy , it explained that habitual abuse is an "autonomous" crime with respect to specific acts: it punishes something different, a sustained climate of violence, domination, fear, humiliation, and distress, and it does not depend on a simple "number" of episodes , but on their permanence or frequency. In this case, it was considered sufficient that between June 2020 and October 2022,6 assaults and 2 death threats were proven, fitting within art. 173.2 of the Criminal Code.
An attempt by the Public Prosecutor's Office to raise an "adhesive appeal" with new corrections in cassation was also rejected, because they were issues not discussed before and cannot be introduced for the first time in cassation.
In situations arising from episodes related to gender-based violence, our professionals are available to provide the necessary assistance and advice.CONTENIDO RELACIONADO
-
Crimes of misappropriation and fraud
Misappropriation of amounts delivered to complete a housing promotion The case revolves around a real estate promotion in Riogordo (Málaga), consisting of 20 homes, managed by a promoting company. In the first stage, two people were listed as joint administrators (although one of them handled the daily management). Between 2008 and 2009, several homes were sold and buyers delivered amounts on account. Some were even given the keys, despite the fact that the work was not actually finished (it was said to be 90% complete), no deed was granted, and the construction company ended up abandoning due to non-payments. The result was that buyers found themselves living in houses without deeds and without a clear situation in the Registry. Some time later, those administrators sold their shares and a third person entered as the sole administrator. This new administrator was aware of the previous problem, but still asked some buyers for additional money (for example, 8,000 euros) on the argument that it was to complete the promotion. The relevant point is that this money was not used for what was promised nor was it returned. Furthermore, between 2010 and 2011, new sales of homes occurred under similar conditions, and later the entire set of 20 homes was sold to another company, generating a serious conflict between those who had bought earlier and those who appeared later as titleholders. The Provincial Court acquitted the first two administrators (it was not proven that they had diverted the money), but convicted the last one for aggravated misappropriation and fraud. The Supreme Court (TS) confirmed the conviction and rejected the appeal as it did not accept reopening the evaluation of the evidence and considered the denial of new documentation correct because it referred to subsequent facts and was not relevant to what was judged.
-
Union law
The CJEU supports the Amnesty Law for normalizing the situation in Catalonia
-
Gender violence
Illegal detention and attempted homicide
This website uses both its own and third-party cookies to analyze our services and navigation on our website in order to improve its contents (analytical purposes: measure visits and sources of web traffic). The legal basis is the consent of the user, except in the case of basic cookies, which are essential to navigate this website.