Barcelona’s Audiencia has granted provisional release to Dani Alves, who was sentenced to four years and six months in prison for sexual assault against a young woman at the Sutton nightclub in the early hours of December 31, 2023. He was also ordered to pay a bond of one million euros.
The footballer had been jailed more than a year earlier, on January 20, 2023, and now awaits final sentencing while outside custody. Both his defense and the prosecution, as well as the victim’s private accusation, have appealed the conviction for various reasons. The High Court of Catalonia (TSJC) will rule in the first instance, with the Supreme Court handling the appeal as the case unfolds. The central legal question concerns the use of the damage repair mitigating factor related to the civil bond of 150,000 euros that the player deposited to cover potential compensation, a factor that contributed to reducing the imposed sentence.
The ruling on Alves became a pioneering interpretation of consent in the context of sexual assault, while it also sparked debate over the severity of penalties under the new law and the role of compensation. The opinion from the Barcelona Court of Appeal, Section 21, states that “consent can be revoked at any moment” within a sexual encounter. The decision arrived two weeks after the trial and was welcomed by the victim, who said through her lawyer, “Finally, I am believed.”
The sexual assault findings
The court found that the football player “took the woman roughly,” “threw her to the ground, and, preventing her from moving, vaginally penetrated her,” despite the victim saying no and wanting to leave. The judges argued that the existence of sexual assault does not require physical injuries or a heroically resisting victim to prove the crime. They noted that the case involved visible injuries on the victim’s knee, which underscored the violence used to compel her will and the ensuing sexual access that the accused did not deny.
The magistrates emphasized that “consent can be revoked at any moment” and that it must be given for each distinct sexual act within a single encounter. The ruling clarifies that it is not the same as casual dancing or flirting when considering consent for vaginal penetration. It was stated that there was no evidence that the victim gave her consent, at least in relation to vaginal penetration, and that the accused exerted control over her will through force.
The decision signals a potential shift in how consent is interpreted under the law, highlighting the need to distinguish between different acts within a sexual encounter and to recognize the possibility of consent being withdrawn at any time. The court’s language leaves room for broader contemplation of how consent is assessed in cases involving violence and coercion, a topic that remains central to ongoing legal discourse and reform debates.
As the legal process continues, observers note that the opinions of the TSJC and the Supreme Court will scrutinize the application of the civil compensation exception and whether it sufficiently informs the consideration of the overall sentence. The discussion reflects a broader movement toward a clearer, more precise standard for consent and the consequences of violating it, in contexts that include high-profile sports figures and public scrutiny. [Attribution: Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Catalunya and subsequent appellate statements].