Lawyers for Driving Under Judicial Suspension

Driving while under judicial license suspension is explicitly criminalized under Article 384 of the Criminal Code and constitutes breach of sentence (quebrantamiento de condena)—a separate criminal offense that can carry imprisonment of 3 to 6 months. Unlike driving with an expired license, there is no ambiguity: driving after a court has revoked or suspended the license is a clear criminal act.

Legal Framework

The judicial deprivation of the right to drive is a penalty (Arts. 39 and 47 CP) imposed in a judgment, to be distinguished from the administrative loss of points handled by the DGT. It accompanies practically all the road safety offences (drink-driving, criminal speeding under Art. 379.1, reckless driving under Art. 380, driving without a licence under Art. 384) and its duration usually ranges between one and four years, reaching six in reckless driving. It is an obligatory penalty, not discretionary: the court cannot decline to impose it, only set its duration. And, unlike imprisonment, it cannot be suspended: it is served in full. Driving during that period is therefore not a minor irregularity but a fresh offence.

Defense Strategies

Our defense examines: whether the driver was properly notified of the license suspension (defective notification invalidates the breach charge), whether the driving was justified by a state of necessity (genuine emergency requiring immediate transportation), challenging the evidence that the defendant was actually driving (vehicle ownership alone is insufficient), and negotiating reduced penalties through plea agreements that address both the original offense and the breach. A relevant technical point is the computation of the period: the deprivation runs from the final and enforceable judgment, and time spent in pre-trial detention is not deducted.

Criminal Consequences

The driver faces two concurrent offenses: driving without a valid licence (Art. 384 CP) AND the breach of sentence (Art. 468 CP), with penalties that accumulate and can exceed one year, making sentence suspension nearly impossible for the new offence. The deprivation affects all licences and permits held, and prevents obtaining a new one while it lasts. The court requires the physical surrender of the licence —failing to do so may be disobedience— and communicates the deprivation to the DGT, which records it. At the end of the penalty, the driver must request the return of the licence, which may require a psychotechnical and, in some cases, a theory exam. Where the profession depends on the licence, the prolonged deprivation adds a serious occupational impact.

The road-safety criminal procedure: the police report, the fast-track trial and the guilty plea

The vast majority of road-safety offences (Articles 379 to 385 of the Criminal Code) are processed through the fast-track procedure set out in Articles 795 and following of the Criminal Procedure Act. Everything begins with the police report (atestado) drawn up by the acting unit (Traffic Civil Guard or Local Police), which records the breath or drug test, the speed measured by the speed-meter, the driver's statements, the witnesses and the signs of influence. The report has the value of a mere complaint: it is not itself evidence for the prosecution and must be ratified and tested at trial. Reading it critically is the first step of any defence.

The investigating court (Juzgado de Instrucción) or the duty court conducts the urgent steps, and the Criminal Court (Juzgado de lo Penal) tries the case. During the duty phase a guilty plea with a one-third reduction of the penalty is often offered, which in many cases allows the matter to be closed in a single hearing. Pleading guilty can be reasonable, but it is not automatic: it is worth assessing first whether the evidence is solid, whether the driving-disqualification penalty is bearable and whether there are defects that make a trial advisable. A hasty plea waives rights that cannot be recovered.

The evidence and how to challenge it: breathalyser, speed-meter and drug test

For the offence under Article 379.2 of the Criminal Code, a conviction requires a level above 0.60 milligrams per litre of exhaled air or above 1.2 grams per litre of blood. The measurement is taken with an evidential breathalyser, a device subject to metrological control: it must be verified and in date, and the test must be carried out with the regulatory double reading and waiting period. Defects in calibration, in the chain of safeguards or in the information of rights may strip the result of effect. The driver has the right to contrast the test with a blood analysis, a safeguard whose denial or omission is relevant to the defence.

For the speeding offence under Article 379.1, the criminal type requires exceeding the regulatory limit by more than 60 km/h on an urban road or by more than 80 km/h on an interurban road; below those thresholds the conduct is, at most, an administrative infraction. Measurement by radar or speed-meter is likewise subject to periodic verification and to the applicable margin of error, which must be deducted from the reading. As for drugs, the saliva device is merely indicative: it does not by itself prove the offence, it must be confirmed in a laboratory and, moreover, the type under Article 379.2 requires actual influence on driving, not the mere presence of the substance.

Driving disqualification (Article 47 of the Criminal Code): scope, calculation and difference from the points system

Every conviction for these offences carries, alongside the prison, fine or community-service penalty, the penalty of disqualification from driving motor vehicles and mopeds under Article 47 of the Criminal Code. Its duration varies by type: more than one and up to four years under Articles 379 and 383, up to six years for the reckless driving of Article 380, and six to ten years for the manifest disregard of Article 381. When the disqualification imposed exceeds two years, it entails the loss of validity of the permit, so that recovering it requires obtaining it again. The calculation of this penalty runs continuously, without interruptions.

It is important not to confuse this criminal disqualification, ordered by a judge in a judgment, with the administrative loss of validity of the permit through exhaustion of the points balance, governed by the consolidated text of the Traffic Act (Royal Legislative Decree 6/2015). These are two different routes, with different authorities, requirements and effects, which may coincide on the same driver. Anyone who drives while a disqualification ordered by judicial decision is in force answers, on the prevailing view, under Article 384 of the Criminal Code (driving after being disqualified by judicial decision); anyone who does so after the administrative loss of validity through exhaustion of points also answers under Article 384, in its loss-of-validity modality. Any application of breach of sentence under Article 468 is reserved to limited and debated cases. Precisely separating the criminal wrong from the administrative one avoids aggravating the situation.

Aggravating and mitigating circumstances, prescription and the limitation period for the road offence

The penalty is not fixed mechanically. Mitigating circumstances may apply with a real effect on the sentence: repair of the damage, confession, undue delay in the proceedings or, where appropriate, a serious addiction that diminishes culpability. Against these, certain facts increase the reproach, such as causing an injurious result, a scenario in which Article 382 of the Criminal Code requires applying the penalty of the most serious offence in its upper half together with civil liability. Refusal to undergo the tests constitutes an autonomous offence under Article 383, punished with imprisonment of six months to one year, regardless of what the actual level was.

As to prescription, road-safety offences carry a maximum penalty falling short of five years' imprisonment, so they prescribe after five years under Article 131 of the Criminal Code; there is no three-year limitation bracket in our Code. The period is interrupted when the proceedings are formally directed against the person under investigation. Prescription is a matter of public order that the court must appreciate of its own motion, but its correct calculation, having regard to the penalty in the abstract and to the interrupting acts, usually requires a technical analysis that should be raised from the very start of the case.