CASE COMMENTARY · SPANISH SUPREME COURTThreats against several people: why there cannot be a single continued offence
DECISION
Judgment 316/2026 of 29 April
COURT
Spanish Supreme Court, Criminal Chamber
IDENTIFICATION
Appeal by the Public Prosecutor on the unity or plurality of continued offences
OUTCOME
Appeal allowed: two continued offences of unconditional threats
The question arises more often than might be expected and the answer changes the sentence substantially: where the same person utters threats over a period against several different victims, is there a single continued offence or as many continued offences as there are people affected? The Spanish Supreme Court has answered clearly, reinforcing the restrictive reading of Article 74(3) of the Criminal Code.
The dispute was not about the existence of the threats, which was not contested, but about their correct characterisation. The Public Prosecutor appealed, arguing that each victim deserves independent criminal protection. The Second Chamber agrees and finds two continued offences instead of one.
The facts and the procedural route
- Multiple episodes of intimidation throughout 2018
- Threatening expressions directed at different people
- Damage to an electrical installation associated with the same context
- The existence of the threats was not in dispute
- The debate concerned the characterisation: one or several continued offences
- The Public Prosecutor appealed in cassation and the appeal was allowed
The legal keys
- The continued offence is an exceptional construct, not the rule
- It requires temporal connection, homogeneity and a unitary purpose
- Article 74(3) excludes it where eminently personal legal interests are harmed
- In threats, each person holds independent criminal protection
- The result is two continued offences of unconditional threats
- Sentences, restraining and no-contact orders and civil liability are maintained
THE DOCTRINEWhat the court holds
The exceptional nature of the continued offence
The Chamber starts from a premise worth recalling because practice often inverts it: the continued offence is an exceptional construct, designed to avoid the artificial fragmentation of homogeneous conduct answering to a single design. It is neither an automatic benefit nor a technique of procedural simplification. Its application requires temporal connection, homogeneity in the manner of commission, infringement of the same provision and a unitary intent or exploitation of an identical opportunity.
The limit of Article 74(3)
That scheme meets an express limit where the conduct harms eminently personal legal interests. The third paragraph of Article 74 excludes continuity in such cases, save for the exceptions the provision itself contemplates. The reason is doctrinal rather than practical: personal interests are neither fungible nor cumulative. The freedom, peace of mind and security of each person constitute an autonomous object of protection that is not added to that of others.
Application to the offence of threats
Applied to threats, the reasoning leads to a single conclusion. The protected interest is the freedom to form one’s will and the individual security of the person receiving the threat. Where threats are directed at different people, there are as many harms to the protected interest as there are addressees, however much the events unfold within the same time frame, in the same place and with identical motivation. Unity of occasion does not absorb the plurality of right-holders.
The result: continuity within each victim
The solution reached by the court is nuanced and deserves attention. Each episode is not fragmented into an autonomous offence, which would be equally incorrect; rather, one continued offence is constructed for each victim. Continuity operates inwards, grouping the successive episodes suffered by the same person, but not outwards, between different people. Hence the Chamber finds two continued offences of unconditional threats.
THE FIRM’S READINGWhat it means in practice
For the defence. It is worth anticipating that invoking continuity where there are several victims may be counterproductive. If the prosecution has charged a single continued offence and the defence does not contest it, an appeal by the Public Prosecutor may increase the sentence, as happened here. The effective strategy lies in contesting the elements of the offence in respect of each addressee, the gravity of the threat and whether it was conditional or unconditional.
For the prosecution. The indictment must individualise the threats by addressee, specifying dates, expressions and context. A global characterisation makes it impossible later to sustain a plurality of offences without a substantial amendment. The distinction between conditional and unconditional threats should likewise be settled from the outset.
On sentencing. Finding several continued offences requires applying the rules on concurrence and, where appropriate, the limits of Article 76. The resulting sentence is often below the arithmetical sum, but the starting point is substantially higher than that of a single continued offence.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONSFrequently asked questions
Can there be one continued offence of threats with several victims?
No. Article 74(3) of the Spanish Criminal Code excludes continuity where eminently personal legal interests are harmed. In threats, each person threatened holds independent criminal protection, so one continued offence must be found for each victim.
What does a continued offence require?
A temporal connection between the acts, homogeneity in the manner of commission, infringement of the same criminal provision or of provisions of the same or similar nature, and execution of a preconceived plan or exploitation of an identical opportunity.
Is each episode then split into a separate offence?
No. Continuity still operates in respect of successive episodes suffered by the same person. What cannot be done is to group into a single offence those directed at different people.
Can a prosecution appeal worsen the defendant’s position?
Yes. Here the Public Prosecutor’s appeal led to two continued offences being found instead of one. Where the question is strictly legal and can be resolved on the established facts, cassation permits a more severe characterisation.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKERelated content
Spanish Criminal Code by articlePenalties by offencePractical defence guidesPractice areas
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. Source consulted: Tirant lo Blanch, actualidad jurídica.
SCJE · ALICANTE AND MADRIDAre you charged with an offence of threats?
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 →
