"I have been working in the nightlife for 10 years and I have never had a complaint, never, it's the first time. I wanted you to know this." This is how the accused of a presumed crime of injury addressed the court of the Provincial Court of Las Palmas, during a trial that took place this Monday in Arrecife. The private prosecution was asking for 6 years in prison for this nightclub bouncer for allegedly punching a client, something he has denied. Both the Prosecutor's Office and the defense have requested an acquittal sentence, as they consider that the authorship of these events has not been proven.
The incident dates back to October 21, 2012. It all happened at the Heineken nightclub, in El Varadero, in Puerto del Carmen, around 2 in the morning. The bouncer explained during the trial that he saw a fight inside the premises, decided to intervene and took a young man out of the nightclub, who was "dazed from the punch he was given." According to the bouncer, the client looked at him and asked him "why did you hit me", to which he replied "I haven't touched you".
The young man's version has been very different, although it has not convinced the Prosecutor's Office. The assaulted man has explained that he was having a few drinks on the esplanade of El Varadero and, around 2 or 3 in the morning, he tried to enter the Heineken. There was "a bottleneck of people" and suddenly the bouncer "turned around" and punched him, according to his version, which caused him to lose a tooth.
"I didn't have any mishaps in the premises. I think the bouncer was nervous and it was my turn. I was with my back turned but he turned around and punched me just like that. I fell and started looking for the tooth," said this young man, who demanded that the bouncer pay for the dental piece. The affected man did not go to the doctor until the next day. "I was in a very low mood, very bad because of the tooth issue," he justified.
The altercation was "inside the premises"
Several witnesses have had to testify during the trial, including the owner of the premises, who has maintained a version very similar to that of the bouncer. In this sense, he has said that he was with two civil guard agents, who at that time were off-duty customers, having a drink at the bar of the nightclub. "An altercation broke out inside the premises. One person ran out and another was bleeding from the mouth. The bouncer was at the entrance of the premises and the altercation was inside," he insisted.
However, a friend of the young man has supported the statement of the assaulted man. "There were many people at the door of the nightclub. He said to let us pass (referring to his friend). Without a word, the bouncer turned around and punched him," she defended, while assuring that her friend did not start any fight.
This witness has not managed to clarify whether the bouncer grabbed the young man by the neck or not, since in the investigation phase she said no, but during the trial this Monday she said the opposite. "I saw him grab him by the neck," she assured. However, when questioned about this matter, she added that she saw "how he punched him" and how he "raised his hand". "I don't know if he squeezed him hard or not, what I saw was the movement."
He came back in "I don't know if to look for a fight"
One of the civil guard witnesses to the events, who was not on duty, has assured that the altercation broke out inside and not at the door. "I don't think the bouncer participated in the fight, at least I didn't see him and I would have seen him with how big he is," he defended. Neither he nor his partner intervened in this fight.
Faced with these events, the premises requested the presence of the Local Police and also the Civil Guard. "There was a boy who was bleeding from the mouth. Apparently, there had been a fight in the premises. He was quite upset, possibly under the influence of something. He told me that an employee of the premises had hit him in the mouth and broken a tooth," said a local police officer.
In his statement, he stated that "it can be said" that the young man "was aggressive", since he wanted to re-enter the premises with the broken tooth and the bloody face "I don't know if to look for a fight", he pointed out. "We told him to calm down, that it had already happened, to go to the doctor, then file a complaint and that's it".
Failures in the video conference and change of room
The next witness had to testify by video conference, but several technical failures have delayed his statement. First, an attempt was made to hold the video conference from the room where the trial was being held, but the connection did not work. Finally, the court has decided to move the trial to another place, to courtroom number 3 and try with that video conference device.
It hasn't been easy either. First, problems with the connection have been detected. The witness, a civil guard who is no longer on the island, heard and saw the court, but in Lanzarote neither the sound nor the image was heard or seen. The president of the court and the prosecutor have decided to go out to look for another room to be able to finish the trial, while the judicial secretary continued trying to connect.
Apparently, there was an incompatibility of the system, since an attempt was being made to hold a conference with Cuenca, not with a judicial headquarters in the Canary Islands. Once the judge and the prosecutor have returned, the connection has continued to be attempted. After several minutes, the court has decided that it was better to suspend the trial and continue it after another procedure that the Provincial Court was going to judge and that was already starting with a lot of delay. Just when they were getting up from the room, the video conference has started to work.
Thus, the hearing has been able to resume, with the statement of this civil guard, who has told a version very similar to that of his partner, that is, that the scuffle took place inside the premises, "at the back", not at the entrance as the young man defends.
Six years in prison and 9,929 euros
After listening to all the statements, the private prosecution has maintained its request for six years in prison for the accused and 9,929 euros as civil liability as the porter's "guilt has been proven".
However, the Public Prosecutor's Office has requested an acquittal sentence, considering that the two different versions that exist about the events "prevent proving the authorship of the injuries". In addition, he has pointed out that there are "reasonable doubts" about the authorship.
The defense has also requested the acquittal of its client, who has decided to make use of his last turn to speak to ask for justice to be done.
