The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) has closed the investigation against Judge Juan Carlos Peinado this Wednesday, which the Judicial Power Council initiated this June after receiving a complaint following the magistrate’s statement in a judicial ruling that the police officers serving as escorts to the wife of the Prime Minister, Begoña Gómez, could help her flee justice. Gómez is charged and on the verge of trial for alleged crimes of influence peddling and embezzlement. Leading that investigation, opened more than two and a half years ago, is Peinado, magistrate of the 41st investigative court of Madrid.
Read more Gloria Steinem: do with your life whatever you want
The presidency of the TSJM has closed the case “as the reported facts do not constitute the offense provided for in article 419.2 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary.” That article considers it “a serious offense” for a judge “to show neglect or disregard towards equals or subordinates in the hierarchical order with citizens.” In this case, the alleged victims of “neglect or disregard” would be the escorts of the wife of the head of the Executive. It establishes that such conduct may entail sanctions ranging from a fine of 6,000 euros to forced transfer, suspension for three years, or even expulsion from the judicial career. Peinado is expected to retire in the coming days due to age.
Peinado’s references that prompted the complaint to the CGPJ appeared in the order where he resolved the opening of the trial against Gómez and the withdrawal of her passport due to the risk of flight to “evade the action of justice.” He justifies it as follows: “There is no doubt that these agents, at a certain moment, either on their own initiative or following orders from their hierarchical superiors, may be precisely those who collaborate in the action or actions carried out to facilitate it.”
These words caused an uproar within the Police, to which the agents accompanying Gómez belong. And on June 20, when Peinado’s ruling was made public, Alberto Prieto Conesa, on behalf of and representing the Unified Police Union (SUP), filed a complaint before the president of the Supreme Court, María Isabel Perelló. “Such statements do not individualize any official, do not describe any specific action attributable to any member of the National Police, and convey, without support in specific facts, a doubt about the institutional loyalty and professionalism of public servants who perform especially sensitive functions and are subject to strict performance controls,” wrote Prieto, who requested that his complaint be forwarded to the Disciplinary Action Promoter of the CGPJ “to examine the content of the statements contained in the order.”
The General Council agreed six days later to leave it in the hands of the disciplinary action promoter, Ricardo Conde, to decide whether or not to open a file against Peinado, and at the end of July, the Permanent Commission of the CGPJ sent said file to the presidency of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid to assess “the possible commission of a minor offense.” But finally, this court has concluded that Peinado’s “neglect or disregard” was not “sufficiently concrete, precise, and serious,” which is what the law requires.
Read more More than half of the students at risk of poverty do not have a scholarship for the cafeteria
