Criminal defence throughout Spain · 24-hour assistance · offices in Madrid and Alicante
Assault, resistance and disobedience rarely arrive alone. In most police reports we review, the police intervened for another reason: a fight outside a venue, a noise complaint, a breath test, a supermarket theft. The Articles 550 to 556 offence is added later.
In brief. The direct witness of that second event is almost always the reporting officer, who is also the injured party: complainant, witness and victim at once, with an injury report in his name and a compensation claim in his favour. That evidential imbalance is the true playing field of this matter, and the videosurveillance images that could counter it are deleted within a month.
Assault, resistance and disobedience rarely arrive alone. In most of the police reports we review, the reason for the intervention was something else: a fight outside a venue in central Alicante, a noise call, a breath test, a shop-theft report, a neighbours’ argument, a street identification. The offence of Articles 550 to 556 is added afterwards, for what was said or done while the arrest was being disputed. The original matter dilutes and the case turns on what happened in three or four minutes, in the street, at night, with everyone agitated.
The second peculiarity matters even more: the direct witness of that second event is almost always the officer who reports it, who also appears as the injured party. There is no bystander victim; there is a report signed by two or three officers whose statements coincide, an injury report in the officer’s name and a different version, yours, which reaches the court with no documentary support unless someone gathers it in the first days. And a candid advance warning: a considerable share of these cases end in a negotiated judgment, not because the defence surrenders, but because, with the evidence as it stands, that is sometimes the technically correct decision. The work lies in making sure it is a decision, not an inertia.
| Conduct | Article | Penalty framework | Key factor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assault on an officer | 550.2 | 6 months – 3 years | Description of the concrete bodily movement |
| Assault on an authority | 550.3 | 1 – 4 years and fine | Strict condition of authority of the victim |
| Aggravated assault | 551 | Penalty one degree higher | Weapons, dangerous objects, vehicle, riot |
| Non-serious resistance | 556.1 | 3 months – 1 year or fine 6 – 18 months | Passive opposition versus violent resistance |
| Serious disobedience | 556.1 | 3 months – 1 year or fine | Lawful, clear and comprehensible order |
| Disrespect (minor offence) | 556.2 | Fine of 1 to 3 months | Whether an officer counts as authority is contested |
| Injuries to the officer | 147 · 148.1 | According to the result | Compatibility of the medical report with the mechanics |
| Refusal of testing | 383 | 6 months – 1 year + driving ban | A distinct road-traffic offence |
Penalty ranges are indicative and set out the ordinary framework; the sentence actually imposed depends on the circumstances of each case.
It is the sentence we hear most at the first visit: the word of the police is gospel. Two different things are mixed in it. The presumption of veracity in the proper sense exists, but belongs to administrative sanctioning procedure (traffic fines, public-safety files), where it shifts the burden to the citizen while admitting contrary proof. In criminal proceedings that rule does not govern: Article 297 LECrim gives police statements in the report the value of a complaint, and the evidence is formed at trial, where the officer testifies as an ordinary witness. In practice, courts do tend to credit officers highly: no personal interest, professional perception, public function.
In the assault offence, however, a circumstance alters that starting point and must be asserted: the officer is not a neutral witness. He is at once complainant, witness and injured party, with an injury report in his name and a compensation claim in his favour. That double condition weakens the presumed impartiality and requires his statement to be examined with the criteria applied to any interested witness: absence of spurious motives, plausibility with external corroboration and persistence without relevant contradictions. From there flows the concrete work of the defence, which does not consist in calling anyone a liar, but in gathering within days the material that corroborates or contradicts each version: the venue’s cameras before the one-month deletion, neutral witnesses, the compatibility of the injuries with the described mechanics, and the exact sequence of the orders given.
Those facing an assault or resistance charge added to an initial matter: classification, cameras and injury compatibility.
Non-Spanish speakers for whom the comprehensibility of the orders and the thresholds of Articles 89 CP and 57.2 LO 4/2000 change the whole strategy.
Attacked public employees: the Article 554 equivalence and the private prosecution.
People who left custody with documented injuries: medical reports, photographs and complaints filed only where the support exists.
Speak to a criminal lawyer
Criminal defence in English before the courts of Alicante and the rest of Spain, for residents and for visitors who have flown home.
Société de Conseil Juridique et Expert es un despacho de abogados con sedes en Madrid, Alicante, Londres y París, especializado en defensa y acusación penal, delitos económicos y corporativos y derecho tecnológico. Trabajamos con orientación estratégica en procedimientos penales complejos, propiedad intelectual y análisis forense avanzado, y prestamos consultoría jurídica, compliance y escudos de protección a particulares y empresas. Atendemos desde Alicante y Madrid, con consulta online en toda España y asistencia al detenido 24 horas. Resuelva sus dudas en las preguntas frecuentes o solicite una primera consulta.
Copyright © 2026 Société de Conseil Juridique et Expert S.L.
