Supreme Court dismisses accusation of intimidating behaviour by a judge in Tenerife towards an accused



The Supreme Court (TS) has rejected a complaint made by an accused individual against the presiding judge of a Criminal Court in Santa Cruz de Tenerife. The accused blamed the judge for acting in a manner that was described as inattentive, threatening, and improper, showing clear animosity and lack of impartiality towards them and their legal position.

The accusation against the judge stemmed from an incident that occurred during a preliminary hearing to determine the course of a criminal trial. The defendant’s lawyer had just been appointed through the ex officio shift and was unfamiliar with the proceedings.

Upon reviewing the recording of the incident, the Supreme Court confirmed that the judge had engaged in a lengthy rebuke of the accused for their behaviour, particularly due to multiple changes in legal representation that had caused delays in the case. The latest appointment had been made without the lawyer having had a chance to review the case files.

The Supreme Court concluded that the judge’s actions, while critical of the defendant’s conduct, were a result of the tumultuous handling of the case and did not constitute an abuse of authority or disrespectful treatment. The Court noted that even in moments of clear irritation when the defendant attempted to speak, the judge’s tone and expressions were not intimidating or offensive.

The Supreme Court determined that the judge’s intention was to urge the lawyer to swiftly address what she considered to be a straightforward dispute in order to proceed with the trial, which, according to the Court, did not demonstrate bias or a preconceived decision.

The complaint had previously been dismissed in September 2022 by the Permanent Commission of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) after the Disciplinary Action Promoter also chose to close the investigative proceedings against the judge.

Subsequently, the complainant appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking a ruling against the previous decisions, an evaluation of the reported conduct of the judge, a declaration of “disciplinary reproach” against them, and the initiation of a disciplinary proceeding.

The resolutions of the Disciplinary Action Promoter and the Permanent Commission of the CGPJ had determined that the judge’s behaviour did not warrant the reported allegations and thus did not justify initiating disciplinary action. The Chamber upheld this decision after reviewing the recording of the preliminary hearing, dismissing the appeal and ordering the complainant to pay potential costs of up to 2,000 Euros.