A February 4, 2020, incident, reported by the Pontevedra State Court in Vigo, involved a man who was legally barred from having any contact with his ex-wife due to serious threats. The case began when she, despite the prohibition, sought him out through a widely used messaging app. The victim did not answer the call, but the judges noted that even an unanswered attempt can constitute a criminal act. The result was a conviction: the defendant received a sentence of nine months and one day in prison, a sentence that was viewed as aggravated in the appellate process.
The conviction came after the Vigo court’s initial ruling was appealed. In his defense, the defendant argued that he was not shown to be the author of the call and suggested there might have been a markup error, arguing that the call was simply a single, lost contact. He asserted that the legal impact of the act would be extremely burdensome for him if treated as a criminal offense. The Pontevedra District Court, particularly its Fourth Chamber, rejected these arguments and reaffirmed the core point of law: the prohibited contact rule does not require repeated actions. A single telephone contact is enough to fulfill the offense when there is a blanket ban on any written, verbal, or visual communication with the victim via any means, including phone, email, or digital platforms, according to the court’s reasoning.
Judicial conclusions about the offense
The court stated that the typical behavior underlying the violation of the penalty does not demand repetition or ongoing regularity. When there is an explicit ban on contacting the victim through any channel, a lone telephone call can suffice to complete the offense. This stance underscores a broader interpretation of the offense, one that does not permit narrow or restrictive readings of the statute. The judges emphasized that, while the legislator’s intended outcome is respected, a strict application of the law is necessary and it does not permit leniency simply because the contact was brief or informal.
According to the ruling, the law does not support a restrictive reading nor does it include nuanced elements that would allow categorizing the behavior as more or less serious. The court indicated that the consequences the law envisions are serious enough to justify punishment, even if the contact was a single attempt rather than a persistent pattern. The decision also aligns with a broader doctrinal view that enforcement should be robust to protect victims from any direct, indirect, or digital approach from someone who is legally prohibited from contacting them. The court’s approach rejects attempts to minimize responsibility based on the form or frequency of contact, and it treats a missed call as an act that closes the door on the victim’s safety in that moment.
In their reasoning, the judges touched on a recurring concern in cases involving modern communication tools. They noted that the phenomenon is not limited to direct phone calls; it can include messages sent via social networks, email, or other digital channels. The court suggested that a single contact through any medium can be sufficient to satisfy the offense in light of a strict prohibition on contact. The emphasis remained on the offender’s disregard for the restraint ordered by the court and the risk this poses to the protected party. The judges also maintained that the legal outcome intended by the legislator is merited and that a literal application of the letter of the law ensures accountability, even when the contact is fleeting. The upshot is a clear message that the law targets any breach of protective orders, not just repeated or habitual breaches, and that each unauthorized attempt to reach the protected person is subject to punishment.
The case thus illustrates a strong stance from the judiciary toward violations of protective orders. The court rejected arguments that a single missed call should be treated as a minor or inconsequential action. Instead, it treated such an act as a complete offense at the moment of the contact, regardless of whether the recipient answered or whether subsequent contact occurred. In this sense, the decision reinforces the principle that the protection offered by a restraining order is absolute and must be observed in all forms of communication, including digital channels. The opinion reflects a commitment to upholding safety for victims and a strict interpretation of the relevant statutes to prevent loopholes that might enable offenders to evade accountability. [citation needed]