The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has revoked the conviction for a crime of slander imposed on a lawyer who he accused in a written appeal to a judge have prevaricatedconsidering that in the specific case it was protected by the right to freedom of expression of the lawyer in the field of forensic exercise of the right of defense.
A Criminal Court of Vigo, and later the Pontevedra Hearingthey convicted the lawyer of slander for falsely accusing the judge of a crime of prevarication in a written appeal, in a case where the lawyer was a private prosecutor, and where he indicated that The appealed resolution had been manifestly unjust and that the magistrate issued it with knowledge that it was so. They imposed a sentence of fine of 2,160 euros and payment of compensation of 500 euros to the judge.
The Supreme Court now considers the lawyer’s appeal, which was supported by the Prosecutor’s Officeapplying to the case the doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court, which considers that, in the exercise of their public functions, judges may face harsher criticism than citizens who do not hold public office.
The Supreme Court adds that lawyers are allowed to make forceful criticism of judicial actions in defense of their clients and even in defense of their own interests, and also that they have the power to request governmental, civil or criminal responsibility of judges for their actions. Actions, “without the mere fact of doing it and expressing criticism towards the actions of the judges represents an illegitimate violation of their right to honor.”
In the specific case, for the Supreme Court “there is no doubt that the aforementioned expressions, objectively considered, are not only unfortunate and inappropriate of what the actions of a lawyer before a judicial body should be, but also unnecessary and objectively offensive. , and may even exceed the limits of freedom of expression.”
But he adds that at this moment it is not a question of determining whether the expressions uttered should be worthy of reproach or sanction, but only if they can support a criminal conviction, which dismisses and acquits the lawyer.
Regarding the doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court recalls that it does not exclude the need to protect judges from offensive verbal attacks that they may receive in the exercise of their functions. The concurrent circumstances and the application of the proportionality parameter must be examined in each case, taking into consideration the litigious interference in light of the whole matter, including the tenor of the expressions referred to and the context in which they were formulated, as well as whether the interference in question was proportionate to the legitimate purposes pursued, the ruling adds.
2024-02-02 10:46:13
#Supreme #Court #annuls #sentence #lawyer #accused #judge #prevarication #protected #freedom #expression
