The Supreme Court has confirmed the sentence of a fine of 5,040 euros to the owner of a bar in Gijón (Asturias) for not preventing the sexual attack that a man carried out in front of him on a client who was semi-conscious, to whom he must compensate 2,000 euros for moral damages.
According to the proven facts, around 7:25 a.m. on July 27, 2017, the 29-year-old woman entered the establishment where she remained for more than three hours drinking shots of an herbal liqueur and several glasses of alcohol, that were served to him by the accused.
As a result of the ingestion, the young woman showed obvious signs of alcohol poisoning, such as lightheadedness, lack of coordination, great difficulty maintaining balance, falling to the ground several times in a state of semi-consciousness and losing the extensions she was wearing. hair and footwear.
In that situation, and being alone in the bar with the owner and another man, “she was subjected by that individual to touching of a sexual nature, kisses, hugs, groping, being carried astride and placed where the individual wanted.”
At one point, the man tried to go further in his sexual assault even though the victim, although with reduced strength, was trying to get away from him.
Faced with this scenario, the owner of the bar, “who at all times remained in the premises while these events were happening, which he witnessed, if not all of them in large part, and despite being aware of the young woman’s vulnerability – not in vain several times from the ground -, did not prevent the attack against the sexual freedom of which he was subjected, when he could well have avoided it without risk to himself or others, allowing, with his passivity, the abuser to act freely.
The accused, convicted of omission of the duty to prevent crimes, claimed in his appeal that the bar’s security camera recordings that he himself provided when he appeared as a witness for the crime of theft be declared null and void, and before being accused, for understanding that he had the right not to incriminate himself, and that without recordings he should have been acquitted as there was no more evidence against him.
The victim, due to alcohol, had amnesia that prevented him from remembering what happened at least until the date of the trial.
But the Supreme Court refuses to annul the evidence of the recordings because the delivery was voluntary, and was fully aware of their content in which “it is clearly observed that the accused witnessed the sexual abuse to which” the woman was subjected.
The Court of Asturias sentenced the sexual offender, who was missing for a long time, to five years and two months for the attempted crime of sexual assault, theft and injuries.
