Reguant avoids disqualification for refusing to answer Vox

The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has sentenced the member of Parliament Eulàlia Reguant to a nine-month fine with a daily fee of fifty euros, which adds up to a total of 13,500 euros, as the author of a crime of serious disobedience to the authority, for refusing to answer, in his appearance as a witness in the trial on February 27, 2019, the questions of the popular action exercised by the political party Vox.

NewsEditor
NewsEditor
07 October 2022 Friday 06:30
6 Reads
Reguant avoids disqualification for refusing to answer Vox

The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has sentenced the member of Parliament Eulàlia Reguant to a nine-month fine with a daily fee of fifty euros, which adds up to a total of 13,500 euros, as the author of a crime of serious disobedience to the authority, for refusing to answer, in his appearance as a witness in the trial on February 27, 2019, the questions of the popular action exercised by the political party Vox.

The court, in a ruling for which Judge Susana Polo was the rapporteur, concludes that "the attitude of the accused in refusing to comply with the court's mandate has been evident and unequivocal, clear and patent".

The court emphasizes that, in this way, Reguant's opposition to answering was "stubborn", "totally thought out and determined", with an attitude of open and persistent refusal to assume the duties that the Law imposes on witnesses.

In addition, it underlines that the defendant's disobedience is especially serious since the protected legal right is not only the principle of authority, as in the rest of the crimes of disobedience, but also indirectly violates other legal rights of great importance in the case of not complying with a court order, such as the proper functioning of the Administration of Justice, public order and the right of defence.

Regarding the sentence to be imposed, the Chamber points out that there are no reasons to opt for the most serious one provided by law in this case, which was imprisonment "not only because it is a custodial sentence, but also because of the accessory consequences that the same carries with it -special disqualification for the right to passive suffrage during the time of the sentence-, not violating, therefore, the principle of proportionality of the sentence in relation to the right to political participation that is invoked by the defense, since we opted for the imposition of the penalty of a fine”.

It adds that "the criminal complaint is not based on the ideological position of the accused, but is directed to the duty of collaboration with justice, and respect for the principle of authority and public order."

Comments

Warning!

You have to login for comment. If you are not a member? Register now.

Login Sign Up