In a Madrid state court case, a teenager who attacked a hospital toilet area was sentenced to four years in prison. The incident, which occurred in July 2021, arose after a nurse asked him to wear a mask. The punishment fell well short of the eight-year term urged by prosecutors, with the offense classified as intentional bodily harm and an aggravated case involving loss of vision in one eye due to gross negligence.
The Madrid County Court’s 15th Division highlighted the sentence, noting that the offender may face expulsion from Spain and a ten-year ban on reentry. After serving three-quarters of the term, the possibility exists to apply for third-degree status or parole. The defendant’s victim is expected to receive compensation exceeding 72,000 euros.
During the February 27 hearing, the accused stated that he struck the nurse with his arm without the intent to harm himself, while the nurse reportedly reacted with panic and the accused denied using a blunt object prior to the incident.
The special accusation sought a ten-year prison term for the nurse’s act of aggression, with nine years designated for attempted murder or, alternatively, bodily injury, plus more than 100,000 euros for compensation covering healing costs, sequelae, and moral damages.
An argument that resulted in aggression
The events unfolded on July 13, 2021, around 10:30 pm, aboard the Madrid Metro Line 1 between Cuatro Caminos and Alto del Arenal stations. The offender, described as a Colombian national, was in a disturbed state while in Spain. The jury members Esther Arranz, María del Pilar Casado, and Ana Revuelta, who served as speaker, signed the decision on March 1.
According to the proven facts, the nurse asked the offender to adjust his mask, which hung below his chin and failed to cover the nose and mouth. This sparked a dispute that escalated into a physical confrontation, with both parties engaging in kicks and punches until other passengers intervened.
Moments later, as the subway halted and before exiting the carriage, the offender allegedly expressed a threat to disrupt the nurse’s bodily integrity, though there was no indication that he intended to cause the eye to burst. The sentence notes that the offender punched the nurse in the face and struck her with the edge of a phone while shouting expletives, before fleeing.
As a result of the blow, the nurse experienced a functional and irreversible loss of the right eye, along with other injuries. The ocular sequelae included diminished quality of life and moral damages tied to the impact on daily living.
The court found irresponsibility
The court explained that the imposed sentence was lower than the amount requested by the prosecution and the special prosecutor. It found no fraud, but concluded there was imprudence on the part of the accused, rather than intentional harm.
After weighing the facts and circumstances, the court stated that it was unlikely the eye injury would have caused complete vision loss simply from the act of striking the nurse while the accused held a mobile phone. It did not find clear evidence that the offender intended to cause the eye injury. The prosecutorial remark, including the insult directed at the nurse, did not demonstrate such an intention either.
The court also noted the absence of mitigated penalty provisions for a scenario where final penalties must be carefully balanced to ensure fairness. It stressed the need to consider proportionality when determining penalties and to avoid overreach in the application of penalties for acts of negligence that compromise vital organs such as the eye. The defense argument that mental changes linked to drug use could lessen responsibility was also addressed in the reasoning.
Overall, the judgment emphasizes that negligence occurred in a situation where the right to judgment was at stake, and it underscores the difficulty of attributing full blame to the defendant for the eye injury given the surrounding circumstances.