Argues that the TSJN’s sentence reduction from 15 to 14 years is not correct
The Criminal Section of the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office has decided to file the appeal against the order of September 11, 2023 of the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Navarra in which the appeal presented by one of the five convicted of The Sanfermines Herd, Angel Boza, and that, consequently, revised downwards the sentence initially imposed on him. For this reason, and based on the application of Organic Law 10/22 on the Comprehensive Guarantee of Sexual Freedom, the law of only yes is yes, his sentence was reduced from 15 to 14 years in prison.
The Navarra Prosecutor’s Office announced a few weeks ago its intention to appeal the aforementioned order in cassation, and, finally, the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office has accepted these arguments and has decided to file the appeal.
The Civil and Criminal Chamber of the TSJN maintained that the sentence should be reduced since the Supreme Court itself indicated in its ruling that it imposed a sentence of 15 years, “next”; or “close” to the legal minimum, minimums that the aforementioned law reduced “significantly.” Thus, as explained by the Chamber, the maximum sentence remains unchanged, but the minimum sentence decreases by 1 year and 3 months, going from 14 years, 3 months and 1 day to 13 years.
“Consequently, the 15 years of prison imposed remain 2 years above the minimum possible. that, indeed, they are within the possible penological range, but that, in the opinion of the majority of this Chamber, no longer meets the parameter set by the Supreme Court in its ruling when it described the sentence imposed as “very close to the legal minimum,” or as “a penalty greater than the legally provided minimum, although very close to it,” he argues. The resolution was adopted by the judges Joaquín Galve Sauraspresident of the TSJN and its speaker, and Francisco Javier Fernández Urzainqui. The third member of the Chamber, Judge Esther Erice Martínez, formulated a dissenting vote in which she advocated dismissing the sentencing review.
The Prosecutor’s Office argues that the TSJN reduced the sentence, based on the fact that the Supreme Court imposed on Boza a sentence of 15 years in prison close to the legal minimum, but it is obvious that the High Court itself expressly indicated in its sentence that it opted for said sentence. “because it was close to the legal minimum” and also “because it was the one that corresponded in light of the circumstances of the incident and the criminal perpetrators”, which was one of the requirements that Judge Esther Erice presented to justify that in her opinion a reduction in the sentence was not possible..
Thus, in the opinion of the Prosecutor’s Office, the reduction in the sentence agreed by the TSJN is not correct, because it only addresses one of the criteria on which the Supreme Court based itself, but omits the second criterion.