Supreme Court Overturns Conviction After DGT Database Error Exposed
The Supreme Court has overturned a criminal conviction for a road safety offense after discovering that the charge was based on a DGT computer error that falsely claimed the driver had exhausted his license points.
A recent Supreme Court ruling has overturned a criminal conviction for a road safety offense, exposing serious flaws in how the Directorate-General for Traffic (DGT) manages its records when they are used in court. The High Court upheld an appeal from a Canary Islands resident whose initial conviction—issued during a fast-track trial—was scrapped after it was revealed that his driver’s license points had not actually been exhausted. The supposed loss of points was simply a computer error within the state agency’s own files.
The case highlights the risks of relying on automated public data. The driver was criminally charged after a breathalyzer test, based on the assumption that he was driving without a valid license. However, his defense team later produced official documentation proving his point balance was intact at the time of the police stop. He was unable to present this evidence during his original trial because the DGT’s system error persisted for months, leaving him unable to defend himself effectively.
This ruling is legally significant because the Supreme Court decided that the new evidence did more than just create reasonable doubt; it invalidated the entire basis of the accusation. Because this was an appeal for review, the court had to determine if evidence that was unavailable during the original trial was enough to overturn a final sentence. The judges concluded that the certificate issued by the traffic authority itself was decisive, proving that the charge had no objective basis from the start.
This incident raises serious questions about the reliability of DGT databases when they are used as primary evidence in criminal proceedings. While fast-track trials are designed for efficiency, they require absolute accuracy in the data used to support a charge. In this case, the Supreme Court corrected an injustice caused by administrative error, reaffirming that mistakes in public record-keeping must never come at the expense of a citizen’s fundamental rights.