The Provincial Court partially upholds the appeals of two minors convicted of harassing a classmate in Málaga. One is acquitted of harassment and the other of the crime against moral integrity.
The Eighth Section of the Málaga Provincial Court has reviewed the sentences imposed on two minors, born in 2007 and 2008, for the ongoing harassment of a classmate. The incidents, as reported by Diario Sur, lasted for two school years and led the victim to stop leaving her home for fear of encountering them.
The Minors Section of the Málaga Court of First Instance, court number 2, had convicted the first for harassment, threats, and a crime against moral integrity, and the second for harassment, a crime against moral integrity, and continued threats. It also imposed measures for both and compensations of 1,500 and 4,500 euros, respectively, for the victim.
The most serious incident occurred on 15 October 2023. The girl received a call from a hidden number in which, amidst insults and laughter, she heard: "We're going to kill you." The minor denied having threatened her and only admitted to having used some insults. His defence questioned whether the conviction could be primarily based on the victim's testimony.
"We're going to kill you"
The court rejects that argument. The young woman maintained a version that was "consistent over time" and did not incur contradictions or inconsistencies. The tribunal highlights that no "spurious intent" to report was demonstrated and that her account contained corroborating elements. The mother and two friends confirmed that the girl told them what happened, and the very existence of the call was acknowledged by the minors and another witness present. Therefore, the Court considers that there was "sufficient and ample" evidence.
However, the ruling partially corrects the first conviction. The adolescent who participated in that call had also been attributed a crime against moral integrity for calling the victim "fat" and directing other insults at her. For the Court, those expressions, while derogatory, "do not alone reach the necessary seriousness and continuity to constitute that crime."
The judges explain that degrading treatment requires a serious assault against moral integrity and that, in this case, the insults occurred in a single call. Their content "is absorbed by the crime of threats" due to the intimidating context in which they were uttered. "It cannot be considered a serious action as it lacks the necessary intensity required by the criminal type," the ruling states.
A different assessment deserves what occurred near the victim's home. According to the facts that the Court deems proven, the two minors repeatedly went to some benches located near the adolescent's home. Two days after the report, they returned there, and when they saw her come out, "they laughed and looked at her defiantly." The defence of one of them argued that he lived nearby and questioned whether merely being there could be considered harassment.
The Court did not see it that way. The ruling considers a "repeated presence accompanied by intimidating attitudes" to be proven. Sitting near her home knowing that it was her obligatory passage; laughing or mocking when she appeared and looking at her provocatively constituted, according to the Court, "a repeated and not isolated sequence of actions." The consequence was that the victim changed her daily habits and no longer wanted to leave her house.
The incidents became more serious because they occurred after the report was filed on 16 October 2023 and when the minor who had intervened in the call had already threatened her the day before. He continued to go, along with the other adolescent, to the vicinity of the house. The Court understands that these behaviours were repeated several times and aimed to "intimidate and restrict the girl's freedom." The report from the forensic psychologist confirmed the severe impact that the situation had on her.
The partial acceptance of the appeal means that this minor is acquitted of the crime against moral integrity but remains convicted of harassment and threats. As a result of the acquittal, the Court reduces the community service from 80 to 60 hours. However, it maintains the distancing, the prohibition of communication, and civil liability. He will have to compensate the victim with 1,500 euros, an amount that, according to the Court, is not disproportionate despite the elimination of one of the crimes.
In the case of the second accused, the ruling records repeated insults and threats, approaches at the school despite the established limitations, harassment, and presence near the house. The Court notes here that the initial ruling punished part of those same behaviours simultaneously as harassment and as a crime against moral integrity, which meant sanctioning the same conduct twice.
For that reason, it acquits him of the crime of harassment but maintains his conviction for the crime against moral integrity. The Court understands that his behaviour went beyond mere harassment.
You may also like
