The Third Section of the Provincial Court of Las Palmas has confirmed another conviction for journalist Francisco Chavanel and the production company of his radio program, El Espejo Canario, for disseminating "false" and "injurious" information to try to discredit the investigation of the Unión case. In this case, the plaintiff was the businessman and former president of the PIL, Antonio Hernández, whom Chavanel referred to as a "protected witness", trying to link him with the judge and the prosecutor who initiated the case and even insinuating that he received "preferential treatment" in exchange for alleged considerations that never existed.
In his appeal against the first instance ruling, which convicted him of attacking Antonio Hernández's honor, the journalist's defense argued that his program was dominated by "the evaluative and critical element protected by freedom of expression." However, the Court responds that "what the appellants call criticism and opinion was based on untrue facts" that, "if they had been true, would even constitute criminal offenses." "It connects said criticism with false facts, which have not been verified" and which are "offensive and untrue and call into question the honor of the plaintiff, with the journalist trying to project certain facts as truth and not as mere and subjective personal conviction," concludes the new ruling, dated April 3.
Thus, it rejects the appeal presented by Chavanel and his production company and fully ratifies the ruling issued in January 2018 by the Court of First Instance Number 1 of Arrecife, which sentenced them to pay 20,000 euros to Antonio Hernández for the moral damage caused, as well as to disseminate the content of the ruling on their radio program. Furthermore, this conviction is added to the other two rulings that have already been ratified by the Court and that convicted the same journalist for attacking the honor of Judge César Romero Pamparacuatro and Prosecutor Ignacio Stampa.
The other two sentences also condemned Canarias 7 and Lancelot
In the case of Stampa, the second instance ruling also condemned the publishing company of Canarias 7, while the one for Pamparacuatro was extended to that regional newspaper and also to Lancelot. In this media outlet, owned by Juan Francisco Rosa, Chavanel also published articles criticizing the investigation of corruption cases in which Rosa is accused, the Unión case and the Stratvs case, and repeating arguments that have been used both by the defense of this businessman and other defendants, such as Dimas Martín, Luis Lleó or Felipe Fernández Camero.
Initially, Antonio Hernández's lawsuit was also directed against the publisher of Canarias 7, where Chavanel wrote an article against him, but the first instance ruling acquitted the newspaper - considering that only its author should be responsible for the content, as it was an opinion article where "suppositions and value judgments predominate"-, and Hernández did not appeal that ruling. "Since the acquittal of the publishing company of the Canarias 7 newspaper in which the article 'Antón, protected witness' was published has not been questioned, this Chamber cannot make any pronouncement in this regard," the new ruling states.
Regarding the appeals of Chavanel and his production company, it rejects them in their entirety, also imposing the payment of costs on them. Thus, contrary to what the defense argued, it concludes that in the appealed ruling there is no "erroneous assessment of the evidence and even less any infringement of the consolidated jurisprudence existing on the conflict between the right to honor and freedom of expression and information, and much less lack of motivation or congruence causing defenselessness, with the statements attacking honor that were made in said programs clearly appearing in the lawsuit".
"Criticism cannot be sustained on uncertain facts"
Regarding freedom of expression, the ruling indicates that it effectively protects the criticism of the investigation of a judicial case, but adds that "said criticism cannot be sustained on uncertain facts and that exceed the scope of freedom of expression, whose only limit is not always just insult, as the appellants seem to intend."
In his appeal, Chavanel also shielded himself in one of the collaborators of his program, Valentín Auyanet, stating that he was the one who "provided" the alleged "information" about Antonio Hernández and that he "limited himself to opining" on "what was stated by an external collaborator." However, the ruling responds that it was Chavanel who "carried the weight of the radio programs and not his collaborator, who limited himself to answering questions that already contained affirmations."
Although Chavanel's defense argued that what he did was to express "mere criticisms and thoughts about the existing link between the plaintiff and Mr. Stampa, protected by freedom of expression," the truth is that both in his radio program and in the opinion articles he even spoke of economic favors from the businessman to the prosecutor, such as the loan of a car or a free rental of a house, which has been proven to be false.
"Based on such unverified information and whose falsehood has been proven in view of the proven facts, Mr. Chavanel offers the public a somewhat novelized vision of the facts," argued the first instance ruling that has now been ratified, and which concluded that with that "novelized vision", Francisco Chavanel has spent years arguing that the entire Unión case was a kind of murky "conspiracy" of certain judges, prosecutors, politicians, UCO agents and even senior state officials.
