Extraordinary Prison Furloughs Lawyers

Nature

Extraordinary furloughs (Art. 47.1 LOGP) are a response to exceptional circumstances of personal relevance affecting the inmate. Unlike ordinary ones, they are not a treatment tool but minimum humanitarian guarantee.

Triggering Causes

• Death of parents, spouse, children, siblings and other intimately linked persons.
• Serious illness of same persons.
• Partner's childbirth.
• Important verified motives of analogous nature.

Urgent Processing

Procedure accelerates maximally: inmate request with supporting documentation; Technical Team report; Treatment Board decision; authorisation by the PSJ or the Central Authority depending on the grade (Arts. 160 and 161 RP), and express PSJ authorisation in first grade (Art. 155.3 RP). In urgent cases the prison governor may authorise it, consulting the Central Authority where appropriate (Art. 161.4 RP).

Special Cases and Jurisprudence

The Constitutional Court grants relief where the refusal is unreasoned: in STC 75/1998, of 31 March, it upheld the complaint for breach of the right to effective judicial protection where a six-day ordinary leave permit had been revoked on appeal by a wholly unreasoned decision. The Court also recalls that Article 25.2 of the Constitution does not create a free-standing right to leave, but it does require the refusal to be reasoned.

Appeals

Denial by the Treatment Board may be challenged by way of complaint (queja) before the PSJ under Art. 162 of the Prison Regulations, and the urgency of the grounds requires immediate action: in death or life-threatening cases, the complaint should be lodged at once, with supporting documents and an express request for an urgent ruling. Habeas corpus is not the route: it covers unlawful detention (Art. 1 LO 6/1984), not the refusal of leave to a sentenced inmate.

Legal requirements and how they are proven before the prison and the Surveillance Judge

The extraordinary leave under Article 47.1 of the General Penitentiary Organic Law (LO 1/1979) responds to a defined humanitarian cause: death or serious illness of parents, spouse, children, siblings and other closely linked persons, the childbirth of the spouse, or important and proven reasons. Unlike ordinary leave, it does not require having served a quarter of the sentence or being classified in the second or third grade: it may be granted regardless of the classification grade. What matters is not penitentiary conduct but the reality and gravity of the event justifying the exit and the feasibility of adopting security measures suited to the inmate's circumstances.

Proof is the heart of the defence. The cause is shown through objective documentation: a medical certificate describing the gravity and the vital risk or hospital admission, a death certificate, family records or documents proving the link, and a report connecting the urgency to the exit. On that basis, the Treatment Board raises its proposal together with the prognosis report, the inmate's trajectory and conduct. Counsel must ensure the file arrives complete and on time, anticipating security objections with concrete proposals: escorted exit, a period limited to what is strictly necessary, and supervision proportionate to the specific profile.

Procedure, competent body and the system of appeals

Extraordinary leave is processed within the execution phase, not as an offence: there is no penalty or prescription attached, because it is a decision about how the sentence is served. The Treatment Board frames the proposal and, given the inherent urgency of these causes, the prison governor may authorise the exit in cases of urgency, consulting the central prison authority where appropriate and informing the Treatment Board (Art. 161.4 RP); for inmates classified in the first grade, express authorisation from the Penitentiary Surveillance Judge, the controlling body, is required (Art. 155.3 RP). When there is sufficient time, the Board refers its decision to that judge or to the central authority, depending on whether the inmate is in the second or third grade (Art. 161.1 RP). Speed is essential: leave for a death or a life-threatening illness loses its meaning if the ruling arrives too late.

Against the Surveillance Judge's decision, an appeal for reconsideration (recurso de reforma) lies first before the same judge, allowing the decision to be reviewed with further argument and evidence. If it is rejected, an appeal (apelación) and, where appropriate, a complaint (queja) lie before the Provincial Court in whose district the establishment is located, under the scheme of the Fifth Additional Provision of the Organic Law of the Judiciary. The queja is essentially reserved for an improper refusal to admit the appeal. Given the urgency, the defence often combines reforma and apelación in a staged manner and requests priority processing so the right is not rendered meaningless.

The role of the defence at each stage of the file

Before the ruling, the work aims to build a solid file: gathering and submitting documentary proof of the family link and of the gravity, coordinating with the prison so the Treatment Board has all the information, and proposing in advance the security measures that neutralise foreseeable objections. A reasoned proposal for an escorted exit, with a period confined to what is needed, facilitates a favourable decision and avoids delays that, in these matters, amount to a de facto denial.

After the ruling, the focus shifts to the appeals and to keeping the strategy consistent with the rest of the execution. The defence reasons the reforma and the apelación by attacking the weak points of the refusal, submits supplementary evidence, and watches the deadlines closely. In parallel, it orders the inmate's overall penitentiary situation, classification, calculation and possible benefits, so that handling the extraordinary leave does not conflict with medium-term objectives. Accompanying the inmate and the family with realistic expectations is part of a responsible service.

Interaction with other execution figures: accumulation, merger and sentence revision

Extraordinary leave does not operate in isolation: it coexists with institutions that shape the framework of service. Legal accumulation under Article 76 of the Criminal Code sets the maximum effective term to be served and falls to the sentencing court, through the channel of Article 988 of the Criminal Procedure Law; the order resolving it may be appealed in cassation before the Supreme Court. The merger under Article 193.2 of the Penitentiary Regulation (RD 190/1996) is an execution operation, controlled by the Surveillance Judge, that unifies sentences for calculation purposes. They should not be confused: different basis, different rule and different body.

On that structure bear the security period of Article 36.2, which conditions third grade, and the calculation rule of Article 78 of the Criminal Code, which may refer ordinary leave and benefits to the total sum of the sentences; neither bars extraordinary leave, which requires no minimum time served. When a more favourable criminal reform comes into force, Article 2.2 of the Criminal Code requires retroactive application of the more beneficial law, which may lead to a revision of the sentence. Organic Law 1/2026 of 8 April, focused on repeat-offending and aggravated figures, does not modify the regime of extraordinary leave; in the face of any reform, the defence assesses whether a revision would improve the inmate's overall position.