The Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife has sentenced a Local Police officer to six months in prison for degrading and threatening a young African migrant street vendor. The officer, found guilty of a crime against moral integrity, has a been banned from holding public office for two years and ordered to pay €2,000 in damages.
The court further imposed a restraining order, requiring the officer to stay at least 200 metres away from the victim for 18 months. Additionally, he must pay a fine of €186 for damages caused to the victim’s mobile phone and €69 for its repair. The sentence acknowledged mitigating factors due to delays in the legal process.
Details of the Incident
The court confirmed that the incident occurred on the evening of 7th June 2019, outside a bar in Santa Úrsula. The officer, who was off duty at the time, became annoyed when the ‘looky looky’ man approached him to sell goods. According to the ruling, the officer sought to humiliate and degrade the young man, using his position as a police officer to threaten and intimidate him.
The officer shouted at the vendor, saying, "You’re not going to sell anymore, you black piece of s**t." When the vendor asked why he was being treated that way and mentioned he would soon visit his family in his home country, the officer retorted with indifference and threatened to fine him.
The situation escalated when the vendor took out his mobile phone, prompting the officer to grab it, throw it against the bar counter to break it, and issue further threats. He reportedly insulted the vendor again, warned of a €3,000 fine, and threatened to have him deported.
The officer physically assaulted the vendor by grabbing his genitals while mocking him: “Now you’re not two metres tall, but one and a half.” He demanded information about the vendor’s supplier and insisted on seeing his identification.
Victim’s Testimony
During the trial, the victim described feeling “powerless, humiliated, and intimidated,” emphasising the difficulty of reporting the incident given the officer’s authority.
Witnesses for the prosecution corroborated the victim’s account, while some defence witnesses admitted that insults were exchanged, albeit justifying the officer’s behaviour by claiming the vendor was overly persistent.
Court’s Decision
While the accusations initially included a hate crime, the court dismissed this charge. It determined that the officer’s actions were not motivated by racial discrimination but rather by an abuse of power. Nevertheless, the court deemed the officer’s treatment of the victim “particularly degrading,” especially given that it occurred in a public venue in front of witnesses.
The ruling stated that the victim experienced “humiliation, distress, and powerlessness,” with the emotional impact evident as he cried during the trial and later fainted, requiring hospitalisation.
Although the officer was not on duty or in uniform during the incident, the court highlighted the abuse of his position of authority, evidenced by his demands for identification and threats to confiscate goods and facilitate deportation. The sentence serves as a reminder of the responsibilities tied to positions of authority and the consequences of abusing such power.
While the court’s ruling brings a measure of accountability, its decision not to classify the incident as a hate crime has drawn criticism from some quarters, raising questions about the interpretation and application of hate crime laws.
