16 years for sexual assault of his ex-partner in Benidorm

Yesterday, Monday May 5th, a man who is accused of repeatedly violating the restraining order that barred him from approaching his ex-partner in Benidorm and for sexual assault, appeared in court at the Alicante Provincial Court. The request for 16 years in prison for sexual assault and violation of a precautionary measure has been upheld by the Prosecutor’s Office. The man’s pretrial detention is not caused by the request for 16 years in prison; instead, it is a result of his repeated violations of the restraining order.

Despite being aware that he was subject to a restraining order against his ex-partner, the defendant arrived at her residence in the resort city on July 2nd, 2023, with the intention of proposing sexual intercourse. The defendant sexually assaulted the victim after she refused, as stated in the indictment. On July 19th, 2023, he returned to the residence and repeatedly rang the doorbell.

The defendant defended his right to respond exclusively to the queries posed by his defence. The investigation didn’t even take into account whether or not there was consenting sexual activity. However, he denied any wrongdoing and solely maintained that his ex-partner desired to get revenge when filing the complaint.

The victim’s testimony was the primary piece of evidence at trial, and she reaffirmed it in her complaint in every detail. She claimed that the man arrived at her residence despite being aware that he was unable to approach her and proceeded to sexually violate her upon his arrival. It transpired that there had been prior violations of the restraining order. In fact, he returned to the residence a few days later and began to ring the doorbell. The Prosecutor’s Office maintained the sentences it requested at the conclusion of the trial, thereby supporting all of these points.

The reason for the preventive detention in this case was not the sexual assault itself, which is still pending sentencing, but rather the repeated violations of the restraining order issued by the Court for Violence against Women. The measure is intended to prevent the victim from encountering additional risk situations, as the accused, despite having been judicially warned, returned to his ex-partner’s residence on numerous occasions, disregarding the explicit prohibition of approaching. The judge interpreted this persistent behaviour as a clear indication of a high risk of repeat offences and that the accused does not respect the judicial measures. Consequently, they justified his imprisonment as a means of ensuring the safety of the complainant and the seamless operation of the process.