The Provincial Court of Tenerife has agreed to prohibit entry to a store in Puerto de la Cruz, in Tenerife, to a man who is currently awaiting a trial in which he is suspected of having committed several thefts in this establishment on Avenida de Colón, near Lago Martiánez.
The actions were initiated after the legal representative of the brand filed a complaint indicating that on two days in October 2022, separate thefts occurred so that after viewing the security camera tapes, the possible perpetrator was identified. to the investigated.
After the complaint was ratified before the Court, it was found that during his statement the detainee admitted having accessed the premises on the days in which the robberies occurred and that he stole several effects but clarified that they had been recovered by the employees.
The Court concludes that it agrees with taking the necessary precautionary measures to prevent more robberies but also believes that it must be taken into account that ordering a distance of 100 meters would mean “a disproportionate reduction” of their freedom to roam given the location of the premises. For this reason, it is considered more appropriate to simply establish a prohibition on entering the establishment.
In May of this year, an Investigating Court issued an order by which the defendant was imposed with the precautionary measure of setting the distance in which he will not be able to travel in the surroundings of this location, which due to its location registers a large daily influx of tourists.
The defense of the accused requested the annulment of the order insofar as his right to defense was violated, since there was no prior hearing and from his point of view the existence of a real risk situation that justifies the adoption of these measures has not been proven. distance measure.
His lawyer argued that after the complaint by the owner of the establishment, the person under investigation has not visited the place again and the status of other lawsuits that were supposedly filed for similar events, against the same person, is unknown.
The Prosecutor’s Office responded that the defense had not actually been heard before adopting the measure but that this requirement was not essential or enforceable either, but clarified that in this case the decision was immediately communicated.
