Sentenced to 14 days in jail and fined 900 euros for a woman who had seven hours late to his polling station

The Supreme Court has sentenced to 14 days in jail and 900 euros a woman from Barcelona who had seven hours late to the table of the polling station where he had been named a member second, considering that, but blamed the delay on an unwillingness intestinal, provided no justification that would have exempted from this requirement.
In a ruling made ​​public this Saturday, the Second Chamber of the high court revoked the acquittal that issued the Provincial Court of Barcelona in November 2009 and, according to the criteria of the Office, which appealed, condemned by Evelyn AS committing an electoral crime .
The incident took place on the occasion of general elections were held on March 9, 2008. The woman received the February 20 official notice informing him that he had been appointed alternate member first in a table in a polling station in Barcelona.
The woman, who did not submit any legal cause to dispense with this duty, was presented at the school at 15.00 pm instead of at 8.00 am when the polling station was established. He argued that his delay was because he had suffered intestinal ailment and went to school when he took effect he had taken drugs. Even after he exercised his right to vote.
Without "good cause"
The ruling of the Supreme, which has been a speaker Judge Ramos Diego, states that the woman committed a crime of "failure" to "not attend the date and time indicated for the constitution of the table" and do not provide any "good cause "that exempted from its legal obligation.
"The justification, when he attends because legally callable, have the effect of exemption from liability under the general rules, "say the judges of the Second Division before adding the item to prevent criminal punishment must be accredited by the active subject "that fails to meet its obligation and not by the prosecution, which" can not require the burden of a negative test ('probatio diabolical'). "
In its appeal, the prosecution alleged that the defendant's conduct is "criminal" because that appear at the polling station a few hours later "indifferent to the effects of the attack on the legally protected interest" in this case "safeguard the proper functioning and development of such an important event in a democracy such as elections to Parliament."
"This is a simple crime of activity in which the typical action is not to appear on time for training of the polling station, threatening or hurting so negligent conduct of its legal duties corresponding electoral process" the prosecution argued.

 

You Might Also Like :