The Timple case

Today this article covers a current news story that has generated a great deal of social alarm, which is known as the Timple case. But I sincerely believe the best person to talk about this is my colleague Francisca Gutiérrez, a lawyer specialised in animal law who shares my passion for animals, the thirst to learn constantly and the determination to transform our society and make it a better place for animals. She is also someone who I was lucky enough to teach at DeAnimals, my online training school for people who want to specialise in animal law.

I will let Francisca talk about this because she is close to the case so knows it better, and she also speaks about the importance of lawyers when reporting accusations of the criminal offence of animal abuse, by representing animal welfare organisations as what is legally known as the ‘acusación popular’ (people’s accusation).

Francisca the lawyer told us the following:

Why are people’s accusations necessary in certain cases?

In order to answer this, we will look at what happened in the case of Timple, a little dog from Teguise (Lanzarote) who died of asphyxiation having been tied up with a rope around all four paws, with a bridle in its mouth and gaffer tape around its snout.

Lawyers who take these cases are often ‘obliged’ to educate the courts because judiciary workers are not always sensitised or trained in this specific matter. As a result we are often forced to appeal against judges’ decisions, for example to overturn a verdict that no evidence of criminality was detected when the abuse did happen and was real.

This especially occurs when the animal abuse was caused by the person who is responsible for the welfare of the animal failing to provide adequate care, or when there is no direct action of injuring the animal with an object.

But what happened in the Timple case has upset us, more than usual if possible, and has hurt us most deeply, because the two people responsible for the death of Timple were given the most lenient punishment possible for animal abuse that the penal code allows – despite this being the only instrument that our laws permit so that justice can be done.

Moreover, we were all witness to the dog’s agony from a video that went viral on the internet, to the excessive cruelty that was used, the violence, the dog’s defencelessness, and the apparent lack of regret shown by those responsible after the crime, especially by the woman, who allegedly told the dog pound worker who went to look for the dog ‘that she was doing it a favour because she had had it up to here with the dog’.

To this we can add that those responsible for this offence benefited from their punishment being reduced by a third, with the agreement of the public prosecutor. A fast-track trial was held that ended with a firm sentence (i.e. one which cannot be appealed) for the offence of animal abuse. As a result the widespread social indignation was increased by the impotence that the legal situation had caused.

People’s and private accusations

The ‘acusación popular’ is a deep-rooted concept in the Spanish criminal process that has no equivalent in comparable legal systems.

An example of people’s accusations is when a lawyer is asked to represent animal welfare organisations in court for cases of animal abuse to call for certain punishments according to the seriousness of the offence committed. This is effectively ‘so that justice can be done’ within the boundaries of article 337 of the Spanish penal code, or by calling for the maximum punishments in this case. No people’s or private accusation would ever call for the minimum punishment.

Effectively, as my lawyer colleague Francisca has explained so well, the work of lawyers is very important to see that justice is done in the majority of legal cases of animal abuse.

For more information about animal law in Spain and Raquel’s online courses in the subject, see the website www.deanimals.com