The Cantabrian Prosecutor’s Office has lodged an appeal against the decision of the local court to release the driver involved in a tragic hit-and-run in Suesa, Ribamontán al Mar, Cantabria, last week. The move reflects the public prosecutor’s position that the court erred in evaluating the risks and the potential for future wrongdoing, and it underscores the seriousness with which authorities handle road incidents that result in multiple casualties.
According to information provided by the Prosecutor’s Office to EFE, the office challenges the ruling issued by the head of the 2nd Circuit Court of First Instance and Order of Santoña, which had chosen not to impose detention on the suspect. The defense argued that there was no danger of flight and that there was no immediate evidence of re-offending, leading to the release. The public prosecution disagreed, noting that the suspect’s freedom could pose a risk to public safety and that the decision needed closer scrutiny in light of the broader circumstances surrounding the case.
In its comments, the prosecution highlighted factors that the judge reportedly considered when deciding on release. One key point was the defendant’s documented engagement with psychiatric treatment for depression, including a history of suicide attempts. The prosecutors contended that maintaining the suspect in confinement could be more protective of the individual while a thorough investigation continues. They argued that the mental health concerns should not automatically translate into leniency for a person whose alleged actions caused grave harm to pedestrians on a roadside crossing.
The incident itself involved a driver who lost control of the vehicle and veered off the road at a crossing, striking three people who were accompanied by relatives. The victims included a woman and her adult son, ages 42 and 19, residents of Sestao in Vizcaya, as well as another woman aged 68 who was a resident of Santo Domingo de la Calzada in La Rioja. A fourth person sustained injuries described as minor abrasions. The gravity of the crash and the vulnerability of those affected underscore why the case has drawn significant attention from local communities and legal observers alike. The court’s account of what happened and who was involved has already become a reference point for discussions about road safety and judicial responses to severe traffic offenses in the region.
Reporting from the judicial records indicates that the driver tested positive for a breathalyzer, with the result exceeding the legal limit. Authorities also noted recent use of cannabis among the substances detected in the driver’s system. These findings have been central to the ongoing legal question of appropriate measures and potential charges pending the outcome of further investigations, including any routine checks on the driver’s health, driving history, and any contributory factors related to the crash. The public record thus far points to a case involving not only tragic loss and harm but also a complex interplay of health considerations, investigative steps, and judicial discretion that will continue to unfold as more evidence becomes available.