The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has confirmed the 10-year prison sentence given to a man accused of trying to kill a man, who he had contacted via a contact application, at his home in Bilbao in 2021.
The court rejected the appeal presented by the defendants against the sentence of the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country (TSJPV) which increased the sentence that the Provincial Court of Bizkaia had imposed on him from 7 and a half to 10 years of imprisonment, partially accepts the appeal against the popular accusation brought by the Association of Gays, Lesbians, Transsexuals and Bisexuals of the Empty Country (GEHITU). Furthermore, he confirmed the sentence to pay, by way of civil liability, compensation of 10,800 euros for injuries, consequences and moral damages.
According to the established facts, the accused and the victim had consensual sexual intercourse on another earlier date and met on another day. On December 17, 2021 they scheduled a new meeting at the victim’s home. They sat down on the sofa and, unexpectedly, the defendant tried to suffocate him with the intention of taking his life. After struggling with him, the victim attempted to free himself and struggled to get some air. After a second drowning attempt, he ran away, opened the door and shouted for help, but the defendant caught up with him again. He finally hit him on the head with a figure that was on a piece of furniture in the hall, causing him an injury and then fled the house, leaving behind his backpack and jacket with the documentation.
The sentence explains that the intention to kill results from the proven fact itself «not only because it expresses it, but also because the action performed, two attempts at drowning and a third with the repeated and strong blows with the decorative figure, weighing 700 grams, of wood covered in leather, reveal the intention to kill from the act, especially since the appellant himself, according to the contested sentence, stated, justifying his behaviour, that he wanted to leave the house only when he believed that his mind had been dissociated and his body, a manifestation defined as implausible by the Court.
He adds that the facts “occur in a short period of time, there are three acts that reaffirm a direct intention to cause the death of the victim, two by asphyxiation, and another with repeated and strong blows with an identified instrument capable of cause death.” in the form used.”
The Chamber also rejects the appeal presented by GEHITU against the TSJPV ruling in which it requested the application of the aggravating circumstance for discrimination. The Court responds that the proven fact “does not refer to that discrimination, an attitude contrary to the equality of citizens deriving, in this case, from a sexual orientation subject to discriminatory treatment”.
The sentence, presented by judge Andrés Martínez Arrieta, holds that “in the proven facts there is no reference to a presupposition of discrimination, nor did the evidence developed in the trial influence this situation of objective discrimination. Perpetrator and victim met and agreed on a relationship, they met again and the facts occurred without referring, as the basis of the conduct, to an act of discrimination against a different sexual orientation.”
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Legal Expert on Recent Supreme Court Ruling
Time.news Editor: Good afternoon, and welcome to another segment of our expert interview series. Today, we’re discussing a recent case that has left many people talking—the Supreme Court’s confirmation of a 10-year prison sentence for a man convicted of attempting to kill another man during a meeting arranged via a contact application. Joining us is legal expert Dr. Elena Márquez, a criminal law specialist. Thank you for being here, Dr. Márquez.
Dr. Elena Márquez: Thank you for having me. It’s an important topic, and I’m glad to discuss it.
Time.news Editor: Let’s dive right in. The case stems from an incident in December 2021 in Bilbao, where the accused allegedly tried to suffocate his victim during what had been a consensual meeting. What can you tell us about the legal intricacies involved here?
Dr. Elena Márquez: This case highlights several crucial elements of criminal law, particularly regarding intent and the severity of actions taken. The court established clear evidence of intent to kill due to the defendant’s actions, which included not only attempts to suffocate the victim but also a physical assault with an object. These aspects played a significant role in the length of the sentence.
Time.news Editor: The original sentence was increased from 7.5 years to 10 years after an appeal. What factors typically contribute to a court’s decision to enhance a sentence in such cases?
Dr. Elena Márquez: Sentences can be adjusted based on various considerations, including the severity of the crime, any premeditated elements, and the impact on the victim. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the action of attempting murder on multiple occasions warranted a longer sentence. The court also received a partial appeal from the victims’ rights organizations, which can influence perceptions of the case severity.
Time.news Editor: The verdict also included a civil liability component, ordering the defendant to pay damages. How does that process work in cases of violent crime?
Dr. Elena Márquez: In cases of violent crime, victims have the right to seek compensation for both physical injuries and emotional distress. The judge can order the perpetrator to pay civil damages, which not only serve as punitive measures but also provide necessary support for victims in their recovery process. Here, the court decided that €10,800 was appropriate considering the nature and impact of the injuries inflicted.
Time.news Editor: Another compelling aspect is the relationship between the victim and the accused, given that they had consensually met before. What implications does this have for understanding the dynamics of such a case?
Dr. Elena Márquez: This presents a complex dynamic often seen in cases involving intimate relationships or encounters. It underscores the importance of consent and the potential for relationships to turn violent. Sadly, it reflects a broader issue of violence within intimate settings, regardless of initial consensual engagement. The change in their interaction from consensual to violent raises critical questions about trust and safety in relationships formed through digital platforms.
Time.news Editor: In the wake of this ruling, what lessons might we draw regarding the safety of individuals using contact applications for meeting new people?
Dr. Elena Márquez: This case serves as a stark reminder that while technology can facilitate connections, there are inherent risks that individuals need to consider. Implementing safety measures like meeting in public spaces, informing trusted friends about the meeting, and maintaining communication can help mitigate such risks. Education on recognizing warning signs in interactions is also crucial.
Time.news Editor: Thank you, Dr. Márquez, for your insightful analysis of this troubling case. It’s a crucial reminder of the legal protections available and the responsibilities that come with using modern technology to connect with others.
Dr. Elena Márquez: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues. It’s vital to keep this conversation going.
Time.news Editor: Indeed it is. We appreciate our audience for tuning in and encourage everyone to consider both the legal and personal safety implications of their interactions online. Until next time!
