Successful case: when a well-negotiated plea agreement can avert a severe sentence

On 5 September we participated in what Act 1/2025 on Procedural Efficiency has denominated a preliminary hearing, a procedural act held prior to the oral trial intended to resolve procedural issues, analogous to the pre-trial hearing in civil proceedings.

Our client, a German national on holiday in Mallorca, faced charges of an offence of assault against public authority (atentado), an offence of causing bodily injury, and three minor offences of bodily injury against four persons — two of whom were police officers. The sentence sought amounted to 30 months’ imprisonment and a nine-month fine at a daily rate of €6 (€1,620), a sentence that, in principle, was not eligible for suspension. In addition, one of the officers appeared as a private prosecutor claiming compensation for the injuries sustained.

In view of the strength of the evidence against him and the clear risk of an effective custodial sentence, we concluded that the most appropriate course to protect the client’s interests was to explore the possibility of an agreement.

We therefore opened negotiations with the private prosecutor, who was satisfied by payment of the corresponding compensation. As a result, he expressly waived the pursuit of criminal and civil claims at the preliminary hearing itself.

With that breakthrough, the strategy focused on reaching an understanding with the Public Prosecutor’s Office. We argued that, at the time of the events, our client was in a state of severe alcoholic intoxication, which justified the application of a partial exculpatory circumstance (diminished responsibility). We also submitted that the harm had been repaired prior to trial, both by lodging payment with the court and by making direct payment to the private prosecutor.

The outcome was a highly favourable agreement: from an initial request of 30 months’ imprisonment and a nine-month fine at €6 per day, the result was a sentence of six months’ imprisonment suspended, disqualification from the right to stand for public office (passive suffrage), a fine equivalent to six months for the principal bodily injury offence and one month for each of the three minor bodily injury offences, each at a daily rate of €5. In practical terms, the custodial sentence was reduced to one-fifth of the originally sought term and did not result in actual imprisonment. Our client’s relief and satisfaction were immediate.

This case illustrates how, on occasion, a well-crafted agreement can be more valuable than the uncertainty of an oral trial — especially where the incriminating evidence is strong and the sentence sought is not susceptible to suspension. In such circumstances, the interest in preserving the presumption of innocence yields to the legal certainty offered by a robust procedural agreement. Acceptance should not be seen as capitulation but as a procedural tool that, when properly used, can make the difference between a devastating conviction and a balanced solution. Knowing when to negotiate and when to litigate is the true essence of strategic criminal defence.

A trial is not always won solely in the courtroom but also at the negotiating table. For that reason, at FukuroLegal we analyse every matter carefully in order to present our clients with the strategy that best protects their interests. Sometimes that strategy involves contesting the prosecution to the end; in others — as in this case — the most effective course is to reach a smart and advantageous agreement.