The investigating court 4 of Santa Coloma de Farners has acquitted the mayor of Caldes de Malavella, Salvador Balliu, who was tried for confronting squatters with an ax on April 19, 2022.
The ruling concludes that the video, which the complainants recorded and which went viral on social networks, rules out that Balliu had a “violent” attitude: “It is true that he carries an ax in his hand, but at no time is an attitude observed. “violent or aggressive, quite the opposite.”
The court points out that it is one of the squatters who “wields a stick” and directs it against the mayor, who “ends up backing away and leaving the place.”
Balliu faced paying a fine and compensation for minor coercion. His lawyer, Carles Monguilod, asked for acquittal.
The video, recorded with a mobile phone, quickly spread through social networks. In the recording of about 45 seconds, the mayor of Caldes de Malavella, and then also president of the La Selva Regional Council, was seen with an ax in his hand arguing with some squatters.
The video raised dust and the opposition to Caldes disapproved of the mayor and demanded that he resign. Balliu did not do it.
The mayor resigned that he had become nervous about a situation that he does not wish on “anyone” when he went to his property believing it would already be empty and the squatters welcomed him brandishing a stick. He stressed that he had tools in his vehicle and that he tried to defend himself with the first thing he found.
The squatters’ complaint against Balliu came to trial in the investigating court 4 of Santa Coloma de Farners. The mayor faced paying a fine of 2,250 euros and compensation for a minor crime of coercion. The defense lawyer, Carles Monguilod, asked for acquittal.
The court agrees with the defense and concludes that “the facts alleged in the complaint have not been proven.”
The sentence states that the minor crime of coercion “requires active conduct on the part of the perpetrator” and that, therefore, he has used “force, violence, threat or any form of physical or psychological coercion” during his action. Conduct, the court clarifies, that must “generate fear or insecurity in the person,” leading them to act “against their free determination.”
In this case, the court emphasizes, this did not happen: “From the evidence as a whole, and especially from the video, an active attitude of the accused does not emerge. It is true that he carries an ax in his hand, but in no case is a violent or aggressive attitude observed, quite the opposite.
According to the ruling, a mother and her children – both of legal age – occupied a house owned by Balliu after they were evicted from a home. They agreed on April 7, 2022 and, a few days later, the police informed them that the house had an owner and that they had to leave. The squatters promised to do it on the 15th. They didn’t do it because since it was Holy Week they couldn’t find anything else. Therefore, when the mayor went to the house on April 19 to change the lock, he found them there. That’s when the confrontation occurred.
The court points out that there are “contradictory versions” of the events because while the squatters told the trial that Balliu had already gone towards them with the axe, the mayor assured that the complainants came out first with a stick and took a tool from the van to defend themselves.
Finally, the ruling analyzes the video and resolves that the mayor is seen with the ax in his hand but “downwards” and one of the complainant’s sons heading towards him “wielding a stick”: “Mr. Balliu is heard saying ‘at two’, as if indicating the maximum time for them to leave and to the son saying ‘but what are you saying, we haven’t found anything, it’s Easter.’” “The accused backs away and says it again to both of them,” adds the court.
Thus, the sentence concludes that the evidence proves that the mayor is the one who “ends up retreating and leaving the place, giving the only warning that they should leave the house.” The squatters ended up leaving the home.
For this reason, and taking into account the arguments of the defense, the court decides that the contradictory versions and “the lack of sufficient evidence of the prosecution regarding the authorship of the denounced events” lead to a ruling of acquittal.
The sentence is not final and can be appealed to the Provincial Court of Girona.
