CASE COMMENTARY · SPANISH SUPREME COURTRecording a former partner with a hidden phone: the Supreme Court narrows the aggravated subtype of Article 197.7
DECISION
Judgment of the Second Chamber (2026)
COURT
Spanish Supreme Court, Criminal Chamber
IDENTIFICATION
On appeal from the Criminal Court of Zaragoza and the Provincial Court of Zaragoza
OUTCOME
Partly allows the appeal and excludes the aggravation
A mobile telephone concealed inside a loudspeaker in the family home, capable of recording remotely, has allowed the Spanish Supreme Court to draw a line that forensic practice had been debating since the 2015 reform: how far the aggravated subtype of Article 197(7) of the Spanish Criminal Code reaches where the perpetrator and the victim have been in an intimate relationship. The Second Chamber answers restrictively, with immediate consequences for the characterisation of a significant number of proceedings involving control and surveillance of a former partner.
The interest of the ruling lies not in the conviction, which stands, but in the legal characterisation. The Supreme Court accepts that an offence of discovery and disclosure of secrets was committed, but denies that the intimate relationship automatically triggers the aggravation. That apparently technical distinction translates into a substantial reduction of the sentence.
The facts and the procedural route
- Verbal and physical abuse of a former partner within the field of gender-based violence
- A mobile phone concealed in a loudspeaker at the family home, with remote recording capability
- The Criminal Court of Zaragoza convicted of abuse, minor humiliation and discovery of secrets under Article 197(1), with the aggravation of Article 197(7)
- The Provincial Court of Zaragoza upheld that decision in full
- The Supreme Court partly allows the appeal and excludes the aggravated subtype
The legal keys
- Article 197(1) punishes non-consensual capture; Article 197(7) punishes dissemination
- The aggravation for an intimate relationship presupposes initial consent to the recording
- It cannot apply to someone who records covertly from the outset
- The sentence stands at one year of imprisonment and a twelve-month fine, with a two-year restraining order
- The costs of the appeal are borne by the public purse
THE DOCTRINEWhat the court holds
Two distinct conducts within the same provision
Article 197 does not describe a single form of conduct. The first paragraph punishes anyone who seizes papers, messages or personal effects, or intercepts another person’s telecommunications, in order to discover their secrets or violate their privacy: the reproach falls on non-consensual obtaining. The seventh paragraph, introduced by the 2015 reform, punishes instead anyone who disseminates, reveals or transfers to third parties images or audiovisual recordings obtained with the victim’s acquiescence in a dwelling or private place, where the disclosure seriously undermines their privacy. The core of the offence shifts here from capture to dissemination.
Initial consent as a precondition of the aggravation
The Supreme Court’s conclusion follows from that structure. The final subparagraph of Article 197(7) increases the penalty where the acts are committed by a spouse or by a person who is or has been linked to the perpetrator by a comparable emotional relationship. But that aggravation sits within an offence that presupposes a recording obtained with consent and subsequently disclosed. Someone who installs a hidden device and records without the victim’s knowledge does not commit that conduct: they commit the conduct of the first paragraph. Extending the aggravation to this situation would mean applying an unfavourable criminal provision by analogy.
A doctrine already foreshadowed
Since its first ruling on this provision, judgment 70/2020 of 24 February, the Second Chamber had warned that Article 197(7) is built on the dissemination of images obtained with the acquiescence of the person concerned which seriously affect their privacy. The decision under comment draws the logical consequence: if there was no consent to the obtaining, the case falls outside the seventh paragraph and, with it, outside its specific aggravation.
The conviction stands, the characterisation changes
It is worth stressing what the judgment does not say. It does not declare the conduct lawful, nor does it question the reality of the control exercised over the victim. Installing the device still amounts to an offence of discovery and disclosure of secrets under the first paragraph, with its own penalty. What falls away is the aggravation, and with it the higher sentencing range applied at first instance.
THE FIRM’S READINGWhat it means in practice
For the defence. The first line of work in these proceedings is not to deny the installation of the device, which is usually established by expert evidence, but to contest the characterisation. Verifying whether there was initial consent to the recording, whether there was dissemination to third parties and whether privacy was seriously undermined makes it possible to move the charge from the aggravated seventh paragraph to the first paragraph, with a difference in sentence that may be decisive for suspension of the prison term.
For the prosecution. The ruling requires the history of the recording to be established precisely. Where what is prosecuted is the disclosure of intimate material the victim had consented to record, the indictment must say so expressly and adduce evidence of the dissemination. Invoking the intimate relationship as a generic aggravation, without that factual basis, leads to a predictable partial reversal on appeal.
On the evidence. A hidden device raises the usual questions of digital evidence: chain of custody of the handset, forensic imaging with a hash value, proof of the recording period and attribution of who physically installed it. Where those matters are not documented in the police report, the defence has real room to challenge, as we set out in our analysis of digital evidence in criminal proceedings.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONSFrequently asked questions
Is it an offence to hide a phone to record a former partner?
Yes. Installing a recording device in a dwelling without the knowledge of the person living there amounts to the offence of discovery and disclosure of secrets under Article 197(1) of the Spanish Criminal Code, which punishes non-consensual interception of communications or violation of privacy by technical means.
When does the aggravated subtype of Article 197(7) apply?
According to this ruling, when images or recordings obtained with the consent of the person concerned in a dwelling or private place are disseminated, revealed or transferred to third parties, and that disclosure seriously undermines their privacy. The aggravation for an intimate relationship operates within that offence, not over covert recording.
What sentence was finally imposed?
One year of imprisonment and a twelve-month fine, with the two-year restraining order maintained. The costs of the appeal were borne by the public purse.
Does this doctrine affect pending proceedings?
Yes. Where covert recording without dissemination has been charged under the aggravation of Article 197(7), the defence may rely on this doctrine to seek recharacterisation, at first instance, on appeal or in cassation.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKERelated content
Article 197 CC: discovery of secretsPractice areasPractical defence guidesComplex proceedings
Commentary prepared by the SCJE team from public sources on the decision. Its content is summarised for informational purposes, without full reproduction. It does not constitute individual legal advice.
SCJE · ALICANTE AND MADRIDAre you under investigation for recording or sharing private material?
Francisco Javier Martín Porras
Abogado penalista, socio de Société de Conseil Juridique et Expert y creador de la metodología LIWARD®. Dirige la defensa en procedimientos penales de alta complejidad, combinando estrategia procesal con análisis pericial y forense. Conozca al equipo →
