A judge acquits the man who harassed Pablo Iglesias and Irene Montero for months in their home

Miguel Frontera, the man accused of harassing Pablo Iglesias and Irene Montero outside their home in Galapagar (Madrid) between May and December 2020, when they were Vice President of the Government and Minister of Equality respectively, has been acquitted. The sentence handed down by the head of the Criminal Court number 14 of Madrid, Belén Pérez Fuentes, concludes that there is no evidence that Frontera committed any of the crimes for which he was accused, except for one of slander against Montero. However, he is not sentenced for this crime either, considering that it is prescribed. According to the ruling made by elDiario.es and to which EL PAÍS has had access. The sentence is not final and can be appealed. During the trial, held last May, the former leader of Podemos and the recently elected MEP for the party, recounted the “situation of anguish” and “fear” they experienced throughout the entire time the harassment lasted, which they say plunged them into a “permanent state of stress and nerves.”

The 30-page ruling dismantles one by one the accusations of both the prosecution – which asked for Frontera to be sentenced to three years in prison for the crimes of serious insults to the authorities, harassment and disclosure of secrets – and the accusation brought by Iglesias and Montero. Thus, the judge admits that during the protests in front of the couple’s home there were gatherings in which the demonstrators made “a constant noise with a megaphone” and which she describes as “highly annoying” and capable of altering “the family and personal life of any person”. However, she points out that, although it is proven that Frontera – who was even given a restraining order against the couple during the investigation of the case – participated in these gatherings, there is no evidence that he was the instigator of them, since she considers it proven that these “continued after the accused left”.

The judge also points out that, in her opinion, these types of protests were part of a time when the government to which Iglesias and Montero belonged had measures, in reference to the confinement of the population to try to minimize the spread of the coronavirus, “which affected all citizens” and caused different protests. “These were annoying, repeated and noisy gatherings, but political,” she adds, stressing that the “sympathizers” of Podemos who went to the place to counteract them also caused noise.

Regarding the surveillance to which Iglesias and Montero were allegedly subjected, the judge points out that it was not proven and that, furthermore, “it was impossible, as there was surveillance in the house 24 hours a day” by the security forces agents who escorted the couple. In this sense, the judge downplays the value of the video that Frontera took from inside the house with his mobile phone after climbing a nearby elevation, concluding that in the recording, which is 10 seconds long, “no figure of any person can be seen”, so he cannot be convicted of a crime of discovery.

The ruling also rejects that Frontera – who during the protests at the end of last year in front of the PSOE federal headquarters in Madrid against the amnesty law, when he was already a well-known character precisely for his actions in front of Iglesias and Montero’s home, regularly went there carrying a shield of the superhero Captain America with the Spanish flag – committed any crime of coercion. The judge considers it proven that, in reality, he only had visual contact with the couple one day and that there is no record of “what violence the accused exercised and what he prevented the complainants from doing or forced them to do.” In this sense, the ruling highlights that both Iglesias and Montero were able to move “in the workplace” without “any type of limitation.”

The accusation of slander was based on the banner that Frontera was carrying, which read on one side “Pablo Iglesias, son of a terrorist”, and on the other side “Irene Montero, illiterate minister whose merit is having worn-out knee pads”, and on the alleged insult he launched at the then vice president when it was his birthday and he was accompanied by his children: “Congratulations, son of a bitch”. The judge concludes that this last insult was not heard by anyone, not even the civil guards who were guarding the house, and also considers that it cannot be considered a serious insult. Regarding the banner, the judge highlights that, as the defendant’s defense had pointed out, Iglesias “boasted on social networks that his father had been a member of the [grupo terrorista desaparecido en la Transición] FRAP” and, therefore, cannot be considered “a serious insult that attacks his personal dignity”.

The judgment adds that, however, the part referring to Montero, which it highlights as having had “a notable impact on social networks”, does consider that its content is “not only insulting, but clearly derogatory and an attack on the dignity of the person to whom it is addressed, without it being able to have any other purpose, due to its highly degrading content, than to insult that person”, since it was shown “in plain view not only of her family but also of her neighbours”. However, it adds that since the offence of insults expires after one year, it considers Frontera’s criminal liability for it to be extinguished.

_