The former mayor of San Bartolomé, Miguel Martín, has added a new conviction to his record, which this time could lead to his imprisonment. The Criminal Court Number 3 of Arrecife considers it proven that Martín committed a crime against land planning, and has imposed a sentence of one year and five months in prison, in addition to a one-year special disqualification from the profession or trade related to construction and a fine of about 5,400 euros.
The events date back to the beginning of January 2008, when Miguel Martín, still a councilor of San Bartolomé and president of the Council of the Designation of Origin of Wine of Lanzarote, began the construction of a wall on one of his farms, located in the Protected Natural Space of La Geria, without a municipal license. According to the ruling, he did not even ask the City Council for a license and, even if he had, "he would not have been able to obtain it", because a construction of these characteristics could not be authorized in that area, known as "El Grifo" and belonging to the municipality of San Bartolomé.
In the ruling, the magistrate points out that Miguel Martín acted "with absolute disregard for land planning", despite having "perfect knowledge of the applicable regulations and the special protection that the area had, not only because of the multiplicity of properties he has in it, according to his own statements, due to his dedication to the sector, but also due to his status at the time as a Public Authority".
As the Seprona reported at the time, the ruling also emphasizes that Miguel Martín carried out other activities in the same area, such as "excavation, earthworks, leveling of the land and uprooting of vines", which "had nothing to do with the construction of the wall". However, it points out that these actions will have to be "punishable by administrative means" and not by criminal means, unlike what happens with the construction of the wall, "which does violate land planning" and which "could in no way be legalized."
In addition to this complaint, which has ended in conviction, the Seprona also intervened in other works carried out by Miguel Martín, who faced sanctions and seals from the Agency for the Protection of the Urban and Natural Environment, mainly for the work carried out on another of his farms, located in Las Quemadas (Tinajo), also lacking licenses.
Rejection of the defense's arguments
During the trial, Miguel Martín's defense, represented by the lawyer Juana María Fernández de las Heras, tried to demonstrate that the former mayor had requested a license four years earlier, specifically on March 2, 2004, but that they had not answered him. In addition, it was based on laws and plans that were approved later to ensure that today the works would be legalizable. According to the ruling, Miguel Martín declared that "knowing the regulations that were about to be approved, he proceeded to erect the walls to protect the harvest."
However, the ruling throws all these arguments to the ground. On the one hand, it maintains that, effectively, Miguel Martín requested a license in 2004, when he was still mayor, but that request did not ask for permission for the construction of a wall, but for "the restructuring of the vineyard, executing new stone zocos and planting new vines." That is, for the work that was being judged, he had not even requested authorization.
Regarding the change in regulations, with the approval of the Law on Urgent Measures of the Government of the Canary Islands and the Special Plan of La Geria, which were not even in force when the work was carried out, the ruling points out that that law does not exempt him from obtaining licenses either. In addition, and although the land is now classified as rural land for agricultural protection, expanding the possible actions in the area, the ruling also considers that this does not include the wall made, with stone and exposed cement. And it is that in the area, according to several experts declared and the judge collects in the ruling, "the use of non-traditional materials" is still prohibited.
"The defendant alleges that the works are currently susceptible to legalization, but does not provide any document to prove it," the judge points out, who emphasizes that "from the applicable legislation it is deduced" that "the wall erected has nothing to do with the volcanic stone of the area and with the traditional way of protecting crops in that place, not implying any harmonization with the land, which has been recognized and protected as a natural landscape, among other things, by the so-called volcanic cones for the protection of the vineyards."
Criminal record
When imposing the prison sentence, the judge has taken into account the background of the former mayor of San Bartolomé, who in 2008 was convicted of forgery in a private document in a sale. As was considered proven in that ruling, which is already final, Miguel Martín gave a deposit of 800,000 pesetas to acquire a farm, but later did not formalize the purchase and ended up denouncing the sellers, claiming not the 800,000 pesetas delivered, but 9,800,000. To do this, he added an initial 9 to the figure that appeared in the document that both parties had signed in the delivery of the deposit. Finally, Martín went from denouncer to denounced, and was convicted of forgery of a private document and false accusation.
On that occasion, as the sentence was less than two years in prison, Miguel Martín did not go to prison, but this time he would have to serve the sentence, as he already has a criminal record. "It is not the first time that he has remained outside the legal system," the judge emphasizes when imposing the sentence. In any case, this new ruling is not yet final, and an appeal can be filed with the Provincial Court of Las Palmas.
Regarding the fine of about 5,400 euros, the magistrate emphasizes that it conforms to "the economic capacity that is presumed to the defendant, who insistently stated in the plenary session that he owns a large amount of land in the area." In addition, he must also pay the costs of the trial.
Regarding the other request from the Prosecutor's Office, which requested the demolition of the work carried out, the ruling leaves that decision in the hands of the Agency for the Protection of the Urban and Natural Environment (Apmun), to whom this ruling has been transferred, so that it requests the demolition of the wall if it deems it appropriate. And it is that the ruling maintains that it will be necessary to prepare a specific report to determine "whether or not the damage caused is susceptible to repair."