Father Fined for Slandering Officer Investigating Son's Fatal Accident

A man has been ordered to pay a fine and compensate a police officer in Adeje for repeatedly slandering him online. The man spent months defaming the officer, who had investigated the fatal accident in La Caleta de Adeje in the summer of 2023, in which his young son died after being hit by a car. The comments, mainly on Facebook, began after the court dismissed the case.

Now, a court in Santa Cruz de Tenerife has ruled that the father must pay a fine of six euros a day for 18 months (totaling 3,240 euros) and pay the police officer 5,000 euros in damages. The total amount he owes is 8,240 euros.

The father disagreed with the court's decision to dismiss the accident case. He believed that all the officers involved in the report were responsible, especially the local police officer who led the investigation.

The man, defended by a lawyer, shared images of the officer's social media profiles and personal vehicles on his own social media. He accused the officer of forgery and bribery. He claimed the officer had taken money from the driver's family to change the accident report.

He questioned why the investigation into his son's death was closed and posted photos of the officer's cars with captions like: "The car of (...) before finishing Patrick's report, and the car of (...) after the report." These comments suggested the officer had been paid off to obstruct the investigation.

Other posts included statements like "Falsified report, alleged corrupt; evidence has disappeared" and accusations that officers were "manipulating evidence to protect Patrick's alleged murderer." He also wrote that "the officers who manipulated the report work at the Adeje Local Police station."

The man admitted to making some of the posts, but claimed his wife and other son wrote others. In court, he said he was "angry with the report, not the complainant" and that "the publications were not directed at him, whom he does not accuse of falsifying the report."

He argued that his posts were protected by his right to freedom of expression and that he was simply pointing out errors in a report he disagreed with. The police officer, however, argued that the posts were intended to insult him and falsely accuse him of crimes related to his investigation.

Sources say the ruling will be appealed.