Accused of Sexual Assault in Spain: Defence Guide

A sexual assault accusation carries up to 12 years in prison. Our criminal defence attorneys, acting as your sexual assault lawyer in Spain, protect your rights with confidentiality.

The Consent Law

LO 10/2022 unified abuse and assault. All non-consensual sexual acts are now sexual assault. Consent must be express.

Defence

Digital evidence (WhatsApp, social media) is the most powerful tool. Our defence team conducts forensic phone extractions.

What the Consent Standard Means for the Defence

Under LO 10/2022, consent must be expressed through acts that clearly convey the person's will. This shifts the focus of the trial onto the context surrounding the encounter: how the parties met, what they said to each other before and afterwards, and how they behaved. For the defence, that context is not an accessory — it is the case. Messages exchanged in the hours and days around the events, the testimony of people who saw the parties together and any objective trace of the relationship become central pieces for reconstructing what actually happened.

The Three Requirements of the Complainant's Testimony

In offences that occur in private, the complainant's statement is usually the core prosecution evidence. For it to support a conviction on its own, case law requires it to pass three tests:

• Absence of spurious motives: no prior conflicts — break-ups, custody disputes, economic interests — that could explain a false accusation.
• Plausibility: a coherent account supported by peripheral corroboration, such as medical reports or messages.
• Persistence: a version that remains essentially constant across the police report, the investigation and the trial.

The defence tests each requirement: documenting the prior relationship, scrutinising whether the corroborating elements really corroborate, and comparing every statement in the file for essential contradictions.

The First Hours: What to Do and What to Avoid

The early decisions often weigh more than anything that happens later. Three rules matter. First, do not make statements without a lawyer: you have the right to remain silent until your defence has reviewed the file, and an improvised account given in shock can fix details that are hard to correct later. Second, do not contact the complainant, directly or through third parties — any approach can be read as pressure. Third, do not delete anything: conversations, photographs and location data may contain exactly the exculpatory material your defence needs, and deletion can be interpreted against you.

Preventive Detention: Fighting for Liberty During the Process

In accusations of this gravity, the prosecution frequently requests preventive detention while the case is investigated. It is not automatic: the court must weigh the strength of the initial evidence and the specific risks invoked — flight, destruction of evidence or acting against the complainant. The defence counters with concrete proof of roots: stable residence, family and work ties, the surrender of travel documents and the willingness to appear whenever summoned. Where detention cannot be avoided at first, its review is requested as the investigation weakens the initial picture.

Towards the Trial

A sexual assault case is decided on evidence, not on headlines. The defence strategy combines the forensic preservation of digital material, the meticulous comparison of statements and the rigorous application of the presumption of innocence: if, after all the evidence, a reasonable doubt remains, acquittal is the only admissible outcome. Every step, from the first statement to the trial, is prepared with that horizon and with strict confidentiality.

The forensic handling of the phone deserves a final note. An extraction performed with technical guarantees — preserving the integrity of the data and documenting the chain of custody — allows messages, photographs and metadata to be relied upon at trial even if the other party challenges them. The same material, presented as loose screenshots, may be worth nothing. In cases where the entire dispute turns on what two people said to each other in private, that difference in evidentiary quality can decide the verdict.