The Supreme Court has delivered a sentence totaling five years, eleven months, and fifteen days for a legion sergeant convicted of abuse of power and crimes against the efficiency of the service, following the death of a fellow legionnaire from a gunshot during a live-fire exercise at the Agost shooting range in March 2019.
In a ruling reported by Europa Press, the Military Service Office rejected the sergeant’s appeal while partially accepting arguments presented by the prosecutor and the special prosecutor. The court also condemned the captain in charge of security for the exercise and the lieutenant responsible for the sergeant’s platoon.
Specifically, the decision assigns one year in prison for disobedience to the captain, and three years in prison for disobedience and crimes against the service’s effectiveness to the lieutenant.
Appeals court reasoning notes that the 2nd Regional Military Court acquitted the two remaining officers and convicted the sergeant who opened fire of three years, ten months, and twenty-six days in prison for crimes confirmed by the Supreme Court: one for service lasting two years and eight months and two counts of abuse of office. The total term sums to just over fourteen months of imprisonment.
The sentence for the initial offense is subsequently increased to four years, nine months, and fifteen days, while the penalties for abuse of office remain. The overall result is five years and eleven months in prison.
moment of shooting
The proven facts show that during the exercise conducted by a Legion company at the Agost field in Alicante, the sergeant stood behind the platoon and fired from a position ahead of some soldiers. At least seven shots were discharged from an HK G36 rifle in front of and above the positions held by members of the left squad.
One of the bullets struck a legionnaire who was kneeling, rifle pointed down at the moment of firing and after the ammunition had been exhausted. The projectile first hit the butt of the rifle before striking the body.
Despite the efforts of colleagues and medical staff to revive him, the wounded soldier died around 18:48 from hypovolemic shock caused by the gunshot. He was 21 years old and an only child at the time of his death.
Condemn civil servants
The Supreme Court increased the sergeant’s sentence for crimes against the service’s effectiveness, judging that the conduct during the live-fire training was reckless and serious. The court described the shooting as occurring outside fixed targets and over positions occupied by several participants, complicating the safety situation.
Additionally, the lieutenant who led the platoon was condemned for crimes against the service’s effectiveness, as the proven facts reveal the lieutenant’s subordinate’s excess in exceeding the exercise plan with live firing. The captain approved and organized the activity, and the court noted leniency from the lieutenant that prolonged the exercise and allowed live shots, creating a risk not sanctioned by law.
Conversely, the Supreme Court convicted both the captain and the lieutenant of complete disobedience for failing to follow the orders of the Civil Guard Judicial Police team on site, even though they later visited the scene the next day for a visual inspection but did not comply with the orders that had been given. The court also states that the captain ordered a reconstruction of the shooting range events before the Civil Guard’s arrival, a move said to have violated the duty to respect and secure regular access.
In addition, the court approved new civil liability provisions that direct compensation to the parents of the deceased legionnaires, set at 250,000 euros total—125,000 euros for each parent. The Plus Ultra Insurance Company is required to compensate each parent up to a total limit of 150,000 euros, rather than the 208,000 previously established, while 75,000 euros are allocated plus a declaration of secondary civil liability by the State.
The high court also recalculated civil liability stemming from the sergeant’s conviction for two counts of abuse of authority, setting the amount at 3,000 euros rather than the 600 euros determined by the criminal court.
The judge thinks it was premeditated murder
The Supreme Court’s decision includes a separate opinion from one of its five judges, the chamber’s president, Jacobo Barja de Quiroga. He argues that the events attributed to the sergeant should be classified as deliberate and negligent murder because the actor was aware of the concrete danger posed by his actions rather than a generic risk associated with using a weapon of that type.
It is noted with surprise that the possibility of negligent conduct by the captain, security guard, and officer who managed the live-fire training at the time was not raised in the vote and that they were not on the scene. The magistrate emphasized the duty of a guarantor and argued that the captain’s failure to be present at the critical moments reflected a serious neglect of duties.