On June 10, 2020, the pedestrian, a British national, was on a crossing on Avenida Argentina when he was hit by the driver's car. The driver tested positive for alcohol, but a criminal court last year acquitted the driver. The fact that he was over the limit did not, in the court's opinion, influence the event.
The driver was accused of having jumped a red light. Witness evidence confirmed that this was not the case. He insisted that the light was green when he got to the crossing and that he did not see the pedestrian walk out. "I suddenly noticed a blow, got out of the car and saw a person on the ground."
The court also highlighted the fact that an Emaya municipal services truck was blocking the vision of the pedestrian, who crossed with the traffic light phase flashing. Two seconds later the impact occurred, when the light was red. The autopsy* found that the pedestrian had consumed alcohol and benzodiazepines. This was said to have impaired his reflexes.
The Prosecutor's Office had called for a sentence of two and a half years and the withdrawal of his driving licence for three and a half years.
* The mother of the Briton has told the Bulletin that there was no autopsy.
10 comments
To be able to write a comment, you have to be registered and logged in
Shaun1Shaun, no problem and thanks. By the way, further to my comment about wondering what would have occurred if the pedestrian HAD been a well know person on the island, one wonders if the driver, who killed someone whilst he was under the influence, actually IS some well known person who has used his influence and standing in the community to avoid being jailed, let alone prosecuted. The whole thing seems to be very fishy to me. Cheers
Richard PearsonWhy do you live here, Pearson?
Shaun1Sometimes
Nigel MaudeJury = Those who decide who broke the law when the details of the crime have been presented to them. In this case, professionally trained members of the judiciary, who are not always as clean as the driven snow, and could have ulterior motives for deciding one way or the other. I feel that a trial with a jury composed of members of the general public would have made a more fair and just decision. But what has fair got to do with it when a foreign citizen is involved ?
Richard PearsonJury? Sorry Richard you are in the wrong country.
Hi Richard Sorry if I took your comments the wrong way, but totally agree with your response
Shaun1I apologise if I didnt explain myself properly. I was implying that the jury, like most locals, and Spaniards in general, think or are under the impression that most, if not all British tourists are perpetually walking around in a drunken stupor. What else, may I ask, explains the fact that the driver, who WAS incapacitated, got away virtually scot-free, whilst the pedestrian, who happened to be British, was, by the looks of things, blamed for the whole occurrence. I wonder what the outcome would have been if the person crossing the road had been a prominent local personage.
Hello Richard Your comment is very offensive , British or not This was a person’s life that was lost when a drunk driver gets behind a wheel of a car. I hope none of his family members read your comments. Shame on you
Unbelievable, in the uk this person would have got 5 years in jail. That’s what you get for drink driving and killing a person
The jury: British ? Must have been drunk.