Supreme Court Judgement no. 801/2022 of 5 October, sentenced the accused as the author of a crime of serious disobedience to authority, considering that her conduct met all the requirements of art. 556. 1 C.P.
Specifically, the Judgment issued contemplates as proven facts that the accused, in the oral trial session that took place on 27 February 2019, appeared as a witness proposed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and one of the defences. The witness, after being questioned by the Court, expressed her refusal to answer the questions posed by the prosecution. Having been warned of the possible consequences of her refusal and the Chamber not accepting the feasibility of any other form of questioning than that provided for by law, the witness withdrew without testifying.
At the end of the session, the Chamber agreed to open a separate case and to impose a fine of two thousand five hundred euros on the defendant and another witness who acted in the same way, against which the defendant’s representatives lodged an appeal for a hearing in court.
The Chamber agreed to consider the pleadings as filed and, prior to ruling, the defendant was requested to state clearly and categorically whether she agreed to testify in the manner provided for in the procedural legislation or persisted in her refusal.
However, the defendant submitted a written statement in which, for various considerations and reasons, the defendant persisted in her refusal to testify and answer the questions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the legally stipulated manner.
In short, the Judgment considers the provisions of art. 716 of the LECrim to be applicable. which provides that ’A witness who refuses to testify shall be liable to a fine of 200 to 5,000 euros, to be imposed on the spot. If, despite this, they persist in their refusal, they will be prosecuted as perpetrators of the offence of serious disobedience to the authority.‘.
Thus, the Supreme Court sentenced the defendant to a 9-month fine of 50€ per day.
Although the defendant’s defence alleges infringement of the principle of non bis in idem, the High Court points out in its Judgment that in no case is this principle infringed as there is no duality of sanctions for the same act, Rather, the sanction imposed in the first place is a coercive fine whose purpose is ‘to force the will of the person who does not voluntarily comply with the legal duty imposed to declare, in short, the coercive fine is a means of forced execution that can be used with respect to any type of obligation, whether personal or not, or of a pecuniary nature’.
The judgment concludes by stating that ‘Logically, in the case of a coercive fine in conjunction with criminal or administrative sanctions, the non bis in idem principle does not apply’.
You can download the judgment below:
