A new rule shapes judicial handling for repeat offenders. Judges consulted by this publication report that stealing can delay trials and, consequently, the sentences imposed on repeat offenders. Effective in August, the reform raises penalties for thieves who have already been convicted of at least three property crimes. The challenge lies in the fact that every stolen item must exceed 400 euros and must be pursued through different courts to recover the property, a process that can span days or weeks.
From the judiciary, the prosecutor’s office, and the defense bar that were consulted before the articles were published, there is concern that this change is not well suited to current workflows and could overload the courts further. Some argued that the 400-euro threshold should not be included in the Penal Code amendment addressing multiple recidivism, and that the reform would have benefited from a return to previous rules that emphasized proportionality. Merchants and restaurant owners, in particular, welcomed a regulation seen as needed to stop the punishment of repeat petty thieves such as pickpockets and purse snatchers.
Once the change came into force on August 28, theft in cases of multiple recidivism becomes a standalone offense with penalties ranging from six months to 18 months of imprisonment. In the view of several jurists, this framework seeks a proportionate sanction that aligns with the Supreme Court’s controversial 2017 ruling, while avoiding excessively harsh sentences.
The second part of Article 234 of the Criminal Code states that a person who takes someone else’s property for profit without the owner’s consent, if the value exceeds 400 euros, faces imprisonment from six to 18 months as a suspect of theft. If the amount does not exceed 400 euros, a lighter penalty is imposed. If an arrestee has three prior fines and the total stolen value again surpasses 400 euros, a fourth prison term could be imposed.
What lies behind this formulation? When a petty theft report under 400 euros lands on a judge’s desk, that judge should review the criminal record to determine whether the suspect has three prior convictions. If not, the case can proceed as a minor offense, with a trial typically two to three months away and a possible fine. If the person has three or more prior convictions that linger in the record, the investigation can become more intricate, often requiring a different procedural path and involving cross-jurisdictional reviews to determine whether the stolen items from the three incidents exceed 400 euros.
The judge then decides whether to pursue a new offense or not. If the decision is to proceed, the process lengthens. Another issue arises: the sentences do not specify the cost of the stolen property. An investigator from Barcelona notes that expert testimony or invoices may be needed to establish value, and without solid evidence, the case can stall because the law is very strict. Time is spent compiling the necessary documentation, as one judge emphasized.
Two possible solutions
The Barcelona bench of judges proposed two paths, according to judicial sources. First, a request to the Ministry of Justice to open a dedicated field in the computer system that records, for each case, the value of the stolen object in addition to the name, case number, and charge. Second, to enable consultation of all sentences against a given individual at least within Catalonia through the same computer process. The challenge is that Spain’s other regions operate with different systems, so obtaining cross-regional court decisions through this method is not feasible.
Before the reform’s approval, the Bar Association of Barcelona questioned the inclusion of the 400-euro threshold. A report available to this newspaper argues that the existence of a persistent criminal pattern, such as a cumulative set of violations, is not justified and would complicate the procedural investigation and even hinder the ability to assess aggravating factors. It warned that in straightforward cases, such as petty thefts, the exact value of the stolen item is often not determined.
In this sense, criminal attorney Jorge Navarro notes that penalties for typical petty theft offenses are usually simple. It is common for the value of the stolen item not to be expressed with precise computations, so the value may be under 400 euros. He adds that the multiple-recidivism reform was necessary because the existing theft law in the country was highly favorable to offenders and did not deter repeat offenses. Navarro stresses that the reform is well-intentioned, but the practical implementation and the functioning of the courts have struggled to keep pace with the stated aims. The reform is seen as necessary, but its execution has faced criticism and debate about its real impact on the justice system and the handling of repeat offenders.