The Supreme Court (TS) has denied a local police officer the request to file an appeal for review, against a sentence of four years in prison for a crime of aggravated attack, after he was convicted of injuring four National Police officers whom he attacked with a 17-centimetre knife blade.
In a sentence the Supreme Court addresses a request for review filed by a man, sentenced by the Criminal Court number 13 of Seville to four years in prison for the crime of aggravated attack by the use of a dangerous instrument, specifically a knife. In addition, said sentence imposed the obligation to pay different compensations to the national police officers who were the object of the attack.
According to the account of proven facts, on January 2, 2018, when a police patrol went to the home where the accused was in the company of his minor children, and entered the house legitimately, “the accused took refuge with his children in a room and when four police officers managed to gain access to it, he received them brandishing a knife with a 17-centimetre blade, which he directed against the neck of one of the officers, who, to avoid being hit, deflected it with one of his hands, being injured”; others “were also injured, after the defendant left the room in the dark” and resisted arrest.
Although the defendant appealed the initial sentence before the Court of Seville, among other aspects because in the face of the simple mitigation of mental alteration recognised by the court, he claimed that he be considered “entirely unimputable”; The Court dismissed his appeal “reasoning, after exposing the jurisprudential requirements to apply the temporary mental disorder that the appellant invoked, that it is obvious that with these characteristics, there cannot be a temporary mental disorder in the defendant, given the prolonged period of police intervention and without even requesting an immediate optional acknowledgment of the facts or such an allegation from the beginning”.
And after the Supreme Court also dismissed his subsequent appeal, the defendant had requested authorisation to claim the review of his sentence, alleging “the subsequent existence of another sentence of this same Supreme Court”, in which he was found to be “an incomplete defence regarding acts committed on the same date as those that determined” his conviction.
In view of this, the Supreme Court explains that “this same defendant was also sentenced in a different and subsequent procedure, for not having returned his minor children to the mother, after having enjoyed the holidays corresponding to Christmas 2017 in their company, minors that were finally reinstated to their mother as a result of the police intervention in the context of which the events that were sentenced in this proceeding occurred”.
In this second conviction for a crime of child abduction, according to the Supreme Court, it was recognised that the defendant “had a dual pathology with alcohol dependence, which diminished his ability to understand, but without cancelling it; and he was also appreciated as a mitigating analogy of mental disorder, a decision that was confirmed by the Court”.
After his subsequent appeal in this second procedure, the Supreme Court upheld said challenge in part, declaring that “from the literalness of the fact declared proven that delimits the field of play of the reason invoked, a significant deficit of guilt that claims the application of the claimed semi-defence”.
The Supreme Court, when estimating in part the appeal of the defendant, regarding this second conviction for a crime of child abduction, detailed that “throughout the legal foundation of the sentence appealed, (. ..), it was stated that the defendant, months before the events, was declared suffering from total permanent disability for his habitual profession as a local police officer and that the clinical picture established by the National Social Security Institute is that of (his mental pathology) with alcoholism”.
“Also, with unquestionable factual-descriptive value, it was stated that the accused had impaired mental faculties and that alcohol consumption aggravates his disorder, whether it is classified as schizoaffective, Asperger or depressive.”
But the Supreme Court has decided to deny the defendant the authorisation to file an appeal for review of the first sentence, because there is no “proven” record that when he attacked the National Police agents “he was at that moment under the harmful effect of consumption of alcoholic beverages that could be interacting” with his original pathology, since the subsequent conviction for a crime of child abduction used to request said review “concerns a crime of a radically different nature, which also lasted for several days, in which those alcoholic intakes would have taken place”.
The post Local Police officer who attacked National Police officers with a knife has appeal rejected appeared first on Spain Today – Breaking Spanish News, Sport, and Information.
