Rancher sentenced in Spain for illegal detention after guarding intruder on farm
The court handed the rancher a two-year prison term for illegal detention after an incident on a farm near Palma de Mallorca. The verdict notes that the accused acted after surprising an intruder on a site housing a cannabis crop. The intruder, found next to the owner, suffered injuries during a struggle that lasted about an hour. The judge considers the evidence for how the injuries occurred to be insufficient to prove that the accused caused them, and the intruder was acquitted of wounding charges. The prosecution had sought a three-year sentence for the intruder, who faced charges of attempted robbery and other offenses.
The events unfolded around one o’clock on the morning of September 11, 2017, at a plot on the outskirts of Palma. A 30-year-old man, accompanied by several unidentified individuals, arrived at the farm to steal cannabis plants. He reportedly leapt over a two-meter-high wall to enter the property and was surprised by the landowner’s son.
The rancher restrained the intruder, binding him with reins or ropes to prevent escape. The captor held the intruder for about an hour until the accused released him. Hours later the intruder was found on the highway with serious injuries to the head, arms, chest, and legs, and several teeth broken. He required hospital care and a lengthy recovery period. During the trial the intruder testified to being beaten during captivity on the farm, but the court found the evidence insufficient to link the injuries directly to the accused and acquitted him of the wounding charge. The public prosecutor had requested a three-year term for the intruder.
Following the incident, Civil Guard officers located the farmer at the hospital and arrested him the same day. Agents discovered 29 cannabis plants and several boxes containing marijuana at another address tied to the defendant. The public ministry pressed for a four-year sentence for a crime against public health, but the court ruled that the total weight of the seized drugs could not be proven or demonstrated as intended for sale to third parties, leading to a dismissal on that count. The judgment confirms the farm owner’s conviction for illegal detention but ultimately leaves other charges unresolved.
In the verdict the judge states that the rancher will serve two years in prison for illegal detention, applying the minimum sentence allowed by the penal code. The court notes that the defendant released the intruder, a factor in favor of him. The intruder, who entered the farm to steal, was declared the author of an attempted robbery and received a sentence of two months in prison plus a fine. The case highlights tensions between self-help responses to crime and the formal process of criminal justice.
Judicial critique of drug evidence and agency diligence
The ruling acquits the rancher in relation to the crimes against public health and raises questions about the thoroughness of the drug seizure investigations conducted by Civil Guard officers. The magistrate criticizes the lack of precision in the seizure proceedings on the farm and the evidentiary gaps surrounding the drugs found. The court notes that none of the guards who were involved in the case conducted weighing, disassembly, or photographing of the seized material. The only items proven to be of interest were the 29 cannabis plants, whose dimensions were not clearly established. The verdict asserts that the crops on the farm appear to have had no purpose beyond personal use rather than distribution for sale.
These comments reflect concerns about how evidence was gathered and documented, and they frame the case within broader debates about the accuracy and reliability of field seizures. The court does not dispute that there was cannabis on the premises, but it questions whether the quantity and context indicated any intent to traffic rather than personal consumption. The decision thus emphasizes the importance of meticulous investigative work and complete documentation in drug-related prosecutions, while maintaining that the actions taken by the rancher during the crisis were not proven to cause the intruder’s injuries beyond reasonable doubt.