Malaga court convicts father of threatening to kill nurse upon son's admission to hospital

According to the ruling, the father threatened to kill an A&E nurse when he faced problems trying to get his child admitted to the paediatric ward for a serious treatment.

The incident happened at a hospital in Malaga city on 24 August 2025. The man took his son, who was suffering from a serious illness and was due to be admitted for treatment, to the A&E desk. He learnt that there was a problem with his son's admission and started shouting at the nurse in charge: "I'm going to shoot you and your husband."

The situation caused the employee "distress". According to the ruling, the father made the remarks under the stress of the possibility that the child might not receive treatment, compounded by other instances of misunderstanding between the two.

Following the ruling from a lower court in Malaga, the father lodged an appeal with the provincial court. His defence team questioned whether there was sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of innocence. They argued that the conviction rested on the nurse's testimony and called for an acquittal.

The provincial court ruling, however, finds that the court's decision was supported by sufficient evidence and that there was no "irrational" assessment of the events.

One of the key points of the appeal was the alleged lack of evidence beyond the complainant's statement. However, the court stated that the defendant and two witnesses had all provided evidence during the trial. Both witness statements confirm that the man threatened the worker.

The court pointed out that a victim's testimony may constitute sufficient evidence for the prosecution to justify a conviction, provided that it is taken in accordance with due process and is supported by corroborating evidence. In this case, all the case-law requirements of "absence of subjective disbelief, plausibility and consistency in the incriminating testimony" have been met.

The court also did not find any breach of the presumption of innocence or any grounds for applying the principle of "in dubio pro reo" ("when in doubt, in favour of the defendant").

The defence's other argument also failed to convince the judges. The defence put forward four possible grounds for exemption: mental disorder, self-defence, a state of necessity and insurmountable fear. The ruling, however, rejects their application on the grounds that it is not sufficient merely to list these circumstances for them to be taken into account.

Whoever raises such defences must prove the elements that would allow them to be assessed. The appeal document merely mentioned these grounds without explaining what mental disturbance would have completely nullified the defendant's free will, what right of his own he sought to defend, what the situation of necessity consisted of or where the insurmountable fear originated.

For this reason, the court concluded that there are no grounds for amending the lower court's ruling. The provincial court dismissed the appeal, upheld the two-month fine at a rate of ten euros per day and ordered the father to pay the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Review the latest crime and judicial news reports