Insights and News on Criminal Law
The merger of sentences, also known as the accumulation of convictions, is a key legal procedure to ensure proportionality and fairness when enforcing multiple penalties imposed on a convicted person. In this article, we analyze its regulation, practical application, and the most relevant aspects under the Criminal Code (CP) and the Criminal Procedure Act (LECrim).
Supreme Court Ruling STS 592/2021 addresses the issue of individual criminal liability in the context of violent collective actions. This problem arises when a group conduct causes harmful results (injuries, homicides, damage) and it is not possible to precisely attribute which specific action caused the specific damage. In this case, a violent demonstration culminated in a group of people throwing objects at police officers, resulting in injuries to two of them. The defendant was convicted under the principle of shared responsibility, despite the fact that it could not be proven that the objects she threw directly hit the injured officers.
Supreme Court Ruling 224/2024 focuses on a case involving an alleged bank mule and establishes key criteria for assessing the criminality of offenses such as money laundering and fraud in similar situations. The ruling provides tools to build solid defenses in cases where the defendant has acted with recklessness or partial ignorance, but without direct or eventual malice. This analysis delves into the implications of this ruling and its relation to defense strategies in cases involving bank mules.
The Constitutional Court's judgment addresses a case of infringement of the right to a trial without undue delay due to the excessive delay in holding a trial, set for three and a half years after the admission of the lawsuit. Although the delays were attributed to structural causes of the judicial system, the Court concludes that such circumstances do not justify the infringement of a fundamental right. Furthermore, it establishes that this type of delay, as a manifestation of the abnormal functioning of the Administration of Justice, entitles the citizen to claim compensation from the State, all in accordance with article 121 of the Spanish Constitution. This ruling reinforces the protection of fundamental rights and highlights the State's responsibility to guarantee efficient justice and to repair the damages derived from its deficiencies.
Supreme Court Judgment 782/2024 examines whether the right of defense includes an entitlement to testify last at trial. Although the defense requested it, the Court clarified that Article 701 LECrim does not guarantee this as an absolute right and allows flexibility in the order of proof. The Court concludes that refusing testimony at the very end does not violate the right of defense because the accused retains the last word before judgment, which protects their rights. Equality of arms is preserved, since both sides have the same procedural opportunities.
Supreme Court Ruling 782/2024 analyses whether the defendant's right to defence includes testifying last at trial. Although the defence requested it, the Court clarified that article 701 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not guarantee this right absolutely, but allows flexibility in the order of evidence. The Court concludes that the refusal to allow such a final statement does not violate the right of defence, as the accused retains the last word at the close of the trial, which protects his rights. Moreover, the principle of equality of arms is preserved, as both parties have the same procedural opportunities to present their case.
The High Court of Justice of Cantabria has handed down a sentence confirming prison sentences for four men accused of multiple sexual assault and revising the sentence of the fourth person involved, who remained passive during the events. This decision is based on the attribution of different degrees of participation in the crime, addressing the concepts of perpetration, necessary cooperation and omissive complicity in crimes of sexual assault.
The recent decision of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, in which the Honourable Ms. Carmen Lamela Díaz intervenes as rapporteur, addresses an issue of great relevance and complexity: the jurisdiction of Spanish courts in cases of international child abduction. This analysis details the key points of the judgment, emphasising both the guidelines of Spanish criminal law and the European regulations governing jurisdiction in these cases.
This legal analysis reviews the Supreme Court ruling of 18 July 2024 on the mitigating circumstance of undue delay in a case of continuous fraud. The judgment examines the requirements for applying this mitigating factor, such as the extraordinary delay and the non-imputability of the defendant in the delay. Despite the ten-year delay, the Court concluded that the complexity of the case and the dilatory manoeuvres of the defendants justified the prolongation of the proceedings, so that the mitigating factor was not applied in a highly qualified manner.
Recommended criminal law firm
Our team of experienced attorneys is dedicated to safeguarding your interests. We offer strategic legal advice and defense in complex cases on an international scale, ensuring confidentiality and a strong commitment to every client.
Contact Us
Contact our criminal defense attorneys. The firm offers immediate action in any emergency situation.