In Girona, a court handed down a sentence of twenty-six and a half years in prison to a drum teacher accused of abusing five students, most of whom were minors. A total of five other students reported similar abuse, but their cases were not included in the criminal proceedings for prescription reasons. (Fuente: tribunals)
The conviction rests on the testimonies of the five victims presented during the trial. The court found that the teacher built trust with the young people, with most of them aged between 13 and 16 when the abuse began. He gave gifts, suggested they were special, and in some cases what appeared to be affection or love. The victims developed emotional dependence, while the accused leveraged this situation as a teacher. (Fuente: statements from the trial)
The abuse reportedly began with massages on the back and clothing adjustments, and in some cases included masturbation or requests for touching. In some instances, there was touching under the influence of the perpetrator. The court did not contest these elements. The defendant admitted sexual relations with four students, while he denied one case because the student was not of the legal age of consent, which stood at 13 at that time. This admission helped disprove any theory of a broader conspiracy. (Fuente: defendant’s statements and court findings)
The court rejected the defendant’s narrative, describing it as a partially false escape route designed to exonerate him after the full burden of proof was laid bare. The ruling emphasizes that the attempt to present an alternative story failed to withstand scrutiny. (Fuente: judicial decision)
Typical patterns of an abuser
Although the defendant claimed the students did not consent to the touching and sexual practices, citing implied consent, the court underscored that the behavior aligned with well-documented patterns used by perpetrators of sexual abuse of minors, often described in English as grooming. The decision details several key traits: establishing a relationship of trust, recognizing the victim’s boundaries, escalating the sexual contact, and sharing secrets. It notes that while the defendant followed certain procedural steps, those steps did not prove legitimate consent and were part of shaping the predator’s personality. (Fuente: court analysis)
The teacher allegedly capitalized on his position of authority in the classroom to ensnare the students. When initial boundaries were set, he tolerated them at first; over time, he persisted and achieved his aims. (Fuente: psychological profile from the case)
The sentence places heavy weight on psychological assessments conducted with the victims, evaluating their mental states and the impact of the events. (Fuente: expert evaluations)
Ultimately, the defendant received a prison term of twenty-six and a half years and was sentenced to five years of probation for five counts of sexual abuse, four of which involved penetration. The court indicated that the maximum possible sentence could reach twenty years in prison, and the defendant was ordered to pay eighty thousand euros in compensation to the victims who suffered significant psychological consequences. He was acquitted on three charges of exhibitionism and sexual provocation for displaying pornographic material to students. (Fuente: sentencing record)