The truth about how Spain is changing

Separatist trial judgement: Forcadell & Turull

Oct 22, 2019, 12:14 pm
Thread: How does the Supreme Court fit each crime to each defendant?

1. Let's continue with the separatist trial judgement. We were interrupted in our reading on Friday with the big riots in Barcelona. The jungle once more crossed that fine line that keeps us all civilised in our human relationships. Forcadell's conviction for sedition...
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 12:14 pm | On Twitter

2. Forcadell: "from her privileged position as Speaker of the Catalan Parliament, made the creation of a parallel legal order, lacking in validity, possible, which led to a long series of appeals and challenges from the central government before the Constitutional Court".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 12:27 pm | On Twitter

4. Once again Catalonia's independence was "unviable", according to the Supreme Court judgment, but Forcadell anyway played "a relevant and decisive role" in developing "the parliamentary pillar" that "served to hold up the pro-independence strategy".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 12:37 pm | On Twitter

3. Forcadell “repeatedly ignored the requests received from the Constitutional Court,” “seriously hindered the performance of public authority,” and “encouraged, organised and participated in mass mobilisations that hindered court work.”
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 12:47 pm | On Twitter

5. Remember that the basic narrative element in the Supreme Court's judgement to support all this is that the real goal of the defendants in 2017 was not the independence of Catalonia but only to pressure Rajoy's central government and render judges in Catalonia powerless.
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 12:49 pm | On Twitter

6. Forcadell went beyond her parliamentary role “with decisions and actions fully integrated into the criminal strategy which she actively joined”; “publicly encouraged mobilisation…”, “openly and publicly supported…”
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 12:55 pm | On Twitter

7. But here the Supreme Court gets tangled again with the supposed aim. Forcadell was taking part “in an express challenge to the constitutional order […] she challenged constitutional legal order”. Wasn't the aim to put pressure on Rajoy's government?
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 1:01 pm | On Twitter

8. Supreme Court refers to Forcadell's “relevant projection” as chairwoman of the ANC, signing the separatist route map in 2015, but it was as Speaker of the Catalan Parliament that her behaviour “reached true criminal importance”.
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 1:05 pm | On Twitter

9. Forcadell: - "Noticeably surpassed the functional remit of her office" - "Contravened the Constitution with several resolutions…” - “And she did so consciously and deliberately…” [Notice it says she contravened the Constitution, no that she defied the government]
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 1:08 pm | On Twitter

10. “Mrs. Forcadell allowed the inclusion of initiatives in the order of the day of the Speaker's Committee that directly challenged the decisions of the Constitutional Court”.
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 1:13 pm | On Twitter

11. "Although it was up to her as Speaker, she did not stop initiatives for debate in the chamber, but was aware that these initiatives had been formally suspended by the Constitutional Court".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 1:14 pm | On Twitter

12. Court believes Secretary General and Chief Counsel of Catalan Parlament over “the complacent defence witnesses” Núria de Gispert, Ernest Benach and Roger Torrent, regarding Forcadell's power to stop unconstitutional issues from being debated.
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 1:23 pm | On Twitter

13. "Mrs. Forcadell was aware of the possibility of exercising her power to veto the processing of proposals contrary to the constitutional order, regardless of their origin".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 1:24 pm | On Twitter

14. "The contribution of the defendant, Mrs. Forcadell, to the commission of the crime of sedition, of which she is accused, was blatant".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 3:12 pm | On Twitter

15. Speaking of the two disconnection laws in September 2017, the Supreme Court describes "a decisive intent" to build "the normative skeleton" that made it possible "to hold a POPULAR VOTE for the exercise of the SUPPOSED 'right to decide'".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 3:26 pm | On Twitter

16. I wonder again about the difference between what all of Spain saw in 2017 and the narrative the judgement contains: if they were only trying to set up another "popular vote" to put pressure on Rajoy's government, why did they bother setting up a whole "normative skeleton"?
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 3:29 pm | On Twitter

17. "The defendant, Mrs. Forcadell, visibly disobeyed the orders of the Constitutional Court. Her disobedience, in the face of other cases prosecuted by this court, is absorbed by the crime of sedition which we declare proven".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 4:10 pm | On Twitter

18. On Oct 27, there were "two resolutions proposed": the declaration of independence and the constituent process. They passed "the constitution of the Catalan Republic" but "only the executive part was adopted" and it was stated that "they would have no legal effect".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 4:56 pm | On Twitter

19. Forcadell has not been convicted for what she voted or said but for not preventing, as Speaker of the Catalan Parliament, “resolutions openly contrary to what had been decided on by the Constitutional Court being voted on". She "actively promoted their passage".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 5:04 pm | On Twitter

20. Then there are a lot of examples of her presence at public events in favor of the referendum or the posting of a few messages on Twitter. Despite "having been notified, together with the members of the executive, to refrain from actions aimed at organising the vote".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 5:25 pm | On Twitter

21. Again the narrative: "more than obvious legal inadequacy", "illusory reference" for mobilised citizens, who believed innocently that there was going to be a real Catalan republic when they were only promoting "a strategy of political simulation towards the central power".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 5:42 pm | On Twitter

22. Supreme Court takes the word of Mossos chief superintendent Ferrán López to conclude that Forcadell "closed the circle of institutional preeminence". She didn't have to go to the key meeting, or even get the notification. Jove's Moleskine diary finally appears on page 330.
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 5:53 pm | On Twitter

23. And the section on Forcadell and sedition ends with some notes on the legal precedence of joint responsibility for crimes: there has to be agreement and "an objective and causal contribution from each co-author, oriented towards the achievement of the jointly sought end".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 6:06 pm | On Twitter

24. The Supreme Court has devoted more pages to the sedition conviction of Forcadell, 19, than Junqueras, six and a half, and Romeva, seven. Turull's is seven, too. Let's take a look…
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 6:58 pm | On Twitter

25. - actively took part in the planned seditious action - took part […] in the various meetings defining the strategy to be followed - actively took part in the creation and implementation of the National Referendum Agreement - tabled the bills
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 7:03 pm | On Twitter

26. On July 4, Turull explained "the binding nature of the referendum in the proclamation of independence" as well as "the legal and administrative mechanisms envisaged to circumvent acts and decisions" of the state.
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 7:19 pm | On Twitter

27. After being appointed as a regional minister in July, Turull was notified by the Constitutional Court, signed the decree calling the referendum in September, was notified of further warnings and took part in the approval of the referendum rules.
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 7:27 pm | On Twitter

28. Turull claimed in his defence that he had to "weigh up" the law and his political responsibility, and that "voting was not a crime". That idea defended by so many during the trial that "the people" say we have to vote, so we vote.
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 7:31 pm | On Twitter

29. Supreme Court: “The rule of law would fracture if in response to a formal notification issued by the Constitutional Court, the highest authority in terms of constitutional guarantees, we were to allow the person concerned to submit that notification to his personal criteria".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 7:35 pm | On Twitter

30. The Supreme Court: “The execution of the orders of the Constitutional Court cannot be postponed on the basis of the political commitments of the person who has been notified".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 7:37 pm | On Twitter

31. Supreme Court: "The implicit argument that I will only obey if, as well as the notification, I am ordered to pay a fine, is completely meaningless".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 7:39 pm | On Twitter

32. How was this different from simple contempt? "It included the creation of a parallel legal order" and "the holding of a prohibited referendum". And Turull's ultimate aim? Again, it was not the longed-for Catalan republic, but "the non-observance of laws".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 7:48 pm | On Twitter

33. Turull presented the Oct 1 ballot boxes, announced a universal census at a press conference, and stated that the Catalan Government's intention was "to do everything possible so Catalans can vote today in the self-determination referendum".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 7:52 pm | On Twitter

34. Turull was also related to—he was the head of the department whose budgetary credits were modified—the €3,430,000 for the Civisme ad campaign, the famous referendum train tracks ad, says the Supreme Court, and the website Referéndum.cat.
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 8:21 pm | On Twitter

35. Turull "was especially active" on Twitter and "it is clear that the call to remain calm, serene and civil" by the regional minister "contains positive value", says the Supreme Court, but he called on people "to turn a legally prohibited referendum into a reality".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 8:25 pm | On Twitter

36. "The defendant was aware that those calls to hold the referendum suspended by the judicial authority implied a clear willingness to promote non-observance of court orders".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 8:27 pm | On Twitter

37. “What is really relevant [in sedition] is to stubbornly oppose the actions of the authorities or corporations acting in application of the laws, in order to make the validity of administrative or judicial decisions possible".
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 8:31 pm | On Twitter

38. Tomorrow we shall continue with the next bit of the judgement. Thank you for reading today.
Published: Oct 22, 2019, 8:40 pm | On Twitter

Get The Spain Report by email

Get original, detailed, independent reporting and analysis of the stories changing Spain. Full-text articles delivered right to your inbox, in English. You can also choose to get them in Spanish. No ads, no spam. Just readers.

What is The Spain Report?

Independent reporting and analysis of the most important stories changing the country, written by Matthew Bennett, a British journalist who has been living and working in Spain for most of the past 20 years. Read more

Questions, stories, interviews, tips: matthew@thespainreport.com
WhatsApp/Signal: (0034) 647 81 81 43
Twitter: @matthewbennett

©2020 Matthew Bennett
The Spain Report | In English | En español