Covid party police fight case resolved by annulment

In the height of the Covid pandemic, when restrictions were harsh in Spain, the police were called to a party, which resulted in a fight between one of the attendees and a police office, a lengthy court case through various levels, the result finally being that the case has been annulled on all points.

The 24th Criminal Court of Madrid has now acquitted a young woman of the crimes of attacking authority and causing minor injuries for the alleged assault on an officer who was participating in the eviction of a party in an apartment Madrid when the first state of alarm and the sanitary restrictions arranged to prevent the spread of coronavirus were still in force.

In the same trial, the magistrate has also acquitted the same police officer, which the woman had also denounced in reciprocation. In other words, the two had denounced each other, and both have now been acquitted.

The magistrate highlights in her sentence, “the existence of reasonable and reasoned doubts in this resolution prevents a condemnatory pronouncement, for which reason she considered that” it is appropriate to acquit both defendants. In this way, she applies the principle “in dubio pro reo”, in case of doubt, in favour of the accused. And since the two had accused each other, both have been acquitted.

The Public Prosecutor ‘s Office requested a year in prison for the young woman, in addition to financial compensation for the police officer.

Judge Bustamante Gil applied an increasingly widespread “custom” among her colleagues to allow the accused woman to sit on the bench, with her lawyer, and start with witness statements and to end with those of the accused. A “custom” that when the future Criminal Procedure Law is approved it will be law.

In this sense, the legal representative of the woman, the criminal lawyer Juango Ospina, highlighted the treatment “in equality of arms, without accepting as an irrefutable reality the version of the agents” that they received in court.

“The Criminal Procedure Law does not exhaustively establish that it is the defendant who must initiate the trial,” he stressed.

The events occurred at 2:30 a.m. on May 24, 2020, 71 days after the first state of alarm was declared – later annulled by the Constitutional Court – when the Government limited by Royal Decree 463/2020 of March 14. social gatherings like the party that took place at that time.

The defendant lived on the floor below the home of another police officer who, noticing that there was noise, music and voices, instead of calling 091, as he should have done, directly contacted his colleagues who were on duty at the Police Station.

The woman´s defence pointed out that this communication was described as “an unusual channel”.

“It led us to think that there was some animosity between the two tenants, and that in this case, the police arrest was predetermined before the arrival of the agents themselves, colleagues from the same police station and friends of the police officer and complaining neighbour,” says Ospina.

The lawyer highlighted the numerous “contradictions between testimonials”, such as pushing, mocking and pouncing that could not be proven.

The colleagues of the neighbour from the National Police who responded to his call intercepted the attendees.

The officer in question proceeded to search the accused when she noticed that she was “very nervous”, as described in the sentence.

A brief scuffle ensued. The police officer was allegedly assaulted and defended herself by forcing the young woman to the ground. After this, the young woman was arrested, handcuffed, and taken to the car, accompanied by two agents.

As a result of this incident, the agent began to experience pain in her right shoulder with muscle contracture, as stated in a forensic medical report with a report of injuries that she presented.

For her part, the defendant presented a hospital report stating that she had to go to physiotherapy due to the appearance of a small ganglion on her right wrist, the product of trauma.

The pair therefore denounced each other, thus starting the long path to the verdict now handed down, a complete waste of time for everyone involved.