The prosecutor and the private prosecution have asked the judge to open an oral trial against the six National Police officers who broke into an apartment on Lagasca street in the capital in March 2021 to break up an illegal party that was being held despite the state of alarm being in force, as reported to Europa Press by legal sources.
Justice revokes the dismissal against five agents of ‘the kick in the door’ and orders that they be tried
Judge Jaime Serret, at the head of the Investigating Court number 28 in Madrid, held the preliminary hearing this morning in view of the trial by a popular jury. The magistrate will resolve within three days if he dictates the order to open the oral trial.
At the hearing, to which all the parties have attended, the prosecutor has requested that the trial be opened to decide on the type of error that he appreciates in the intervention that took place on the morning of March 21.
In its provisional conclusions, it considers that they would have incurred in a crime of trespassing in its recklessness modality, but understands that there is no criminal liability since the “reckless” modality is not “expressly” typified in this criminal precept.
The lawyer Juango Ospina, who defends the tenant, has also requested that an oral trial be opened, considering that there is “sufficient” incriminating evidence against the accused.
The sub-inspector’s lawyer has requested the dismissal of the proceedings for procedural reasons such as the fact that the private prosecution has not paid the bail or that in the power of lawsuits he is not empowered to accuse for a crime of damages.
Similarly, the State Attorney’s Office has opposed a trial, since in its provisional conclusions it already requested the acquittal of the agents.
In the request for proceedings, the defense of the agents has provided a sentence that archives a similar case, being inadmissible by the judge instructing the procedure.
For his part, the lawyer for the private prosecution has provided the syllabus studied by the Police in the executive and basic scale to prove that they study criminal law and know about the inviolability of the home, a fundamental right included in the Spanish Constitution.
This lawyer who works as a private prosecutor has also requested that the agents deliver their full affiliation in order to know if they have a criminal record.
Looking ahead to the trial, the State Attorney’s Office requests the acquittal of the six agents, since it considers that the police action does not constitute an “infraction” or “criminal responsibility”, as the Madrid Prosecutor’s Office considers, and requests that it be applied to the agents exempt it completely for acting in compliance with a duty.
In the event that the facts are considered to constitute a crime, he asks in a subsidiary manner that his intervention be qualified as an error of a type that can be overcome under article 14.1 of the Penal Code. This error is one that, given the author’s personal and factual circumstances, could not be overcome in any way.
The legal case is in the intermediate phase of presentation of provisional conclusions in the face of the trial for a crime of trespassing.
The lawyer Juango Ospina, who represents the private prosecution on behalf of the tenant, requests four years in prison and six years of absolute disqualification for the alleged commission of a crime of trespassing and damage.
The agents assure that there were “sufficient rational indications” of a previous crime
According to the defendants, the house had the outward appearance of being a tourist home due to the characteristics of the opening system with a magnetic key, the lack of data in the apartment mailbox and the lack of registration of the interested party.
The agents argue in their defense brief that there were “sufficient rational indications” of a previous or previous crime to understand that there was a flagrante delicto, including serious disobedience to law enforcement officers; of the crime of noise emission; of the crime of psychic injuries; and the crime of real estate harassment or mobbing.
They emphasize that it was discovered, in the absence of adequate investigative steps, that “a crime against sexual freedom and indemnity (profit organization of high-level prostitution for visitors from the Middle East) could be taking place, which will require due interrogation.”