Public safety law 'goes against the Constitution' and fines are 'excessive', says court governing body
Public safety law 'goes against the Constitution' and fines are 'excessive', says court governing body
INITIAL reports by the court governing body on a new law proposing fines of up to 600,000 euros for public demonstrations without a permit and for photographing police in the course of their duty has slammed the contents and said the text is 'dubious' in terms of whether or not it goes against the Spanish Constitution.
A draft paper – pending input from other speakers of the General Judicial Power Council (GCPJ) – drawn up by pro-progress Victoria Cinto and conservative Wenceslao Olea says the fines stated in the proposed Law of Public Safety are 'disproportionate' to the offences, and that some of these cannot even be considered offences as such.
It contains criteria which is 'excessively wide and fluid' for justifying police involvement in a situation, and both Cinto and Olea believe that the idea of 'mere suspicion' being enough to warrant police pressing charges against a member of the public is 'unacceptable'.
They consider that the regulations relating to police ordering to see people's ID or placing them in custody for 'criminal or civil offences' goes against the Constitution and that no clear definition is given between 'criminal' and 'civil', possibly giving rise to a person being tried twice for the same incident, which goes against standard judicial procedures.
Fines should be aimed at 're-educating' and not 'earning money from the offender', and the part which states police have the right to search a person if they suspect they have committed an offence is 'incomplete and imprecise', since it does not define or place limitations on the definition of 'search'.
Neither do Cinto and Olea agree with the part about how the organisers and promoters of a demonstration will be held jointly liable, since this goes against the principle of fines or charges issued to separate legal persons.
So-called 'offensive exaltation' or 'damage or vandalism of the Spanish flag' are also too vague and the punishment does not fit the crime, say the GCPJ board members.
As well as considering the fines to be 'confiscatory' and 'excessively exemplary', and not in proportion to the action they are aimed at, in the case of many of the offences listed, 'it is difficult to see how they could put public safety at risk'.
Penalising 'personalised' flash-mob protests, known as escraches – where campaigners demonstrate outside a given politician's private home or office, targeting them personally – is 'excessive and unnecessary', say Cinto and Olea.
