It will deliberate on whether the so-called cases of ‘stealthing’ can be considered crimes against sexual freedom


The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court (TS) will analyze this Thursday for the first time whether cases of ‘stealthing’ – having sexual relations without a condom without consent to do without it – can be considered crimes against sexual freedom, according to legal sources have informed Europa Press.

The issue has arisen as a result of a case of ‘stealthing’ from the Provincial Court of Seville where the accused was sentenced to 4 years in prison for a crime of sexual abuse and 6 months in prison for another of injuries.

The sources consulted indicate that a court of five judges from the Second Chamber of the TS planned to address last November the deliberation and ruling of the appeal presented by the man against this sentence, which was confirmed by the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of Andalusia. . However, they finally decided to elevate it to the Plenary Session upon understanding that it raises a novel issue that the Supreme Court had not addressed until now.

Thus, this Thursday the Plenary Session of the Criminal Chamber will be in charge of studying through this case whether the so-called ‘stealthing’ behaviors can fit into those punished for crimes against sexual freedom.

The specific case, whose presentation fell to Judge Antonio del Moral, dates back to July 2017 when the convicted person and the victim were preparing to have consensual sexual relations in a car parked in an open field, as they had done on other occasions in the recent months “without it being possible to affirm that another type of emotional relationship existed between them,” according to the TSJ ruling, to which Europa Press has had access.

Before the sexual encounter, he informed her that he was being treated for a sexually transmitted disease, “although without telling her the specific diagnosis.” She reacted by consenting to sexual relations but with protection, “because they had always kept them that way and even more so because of the infection”, for which purpose she gave him the condom herself.

However, he never put it on, pretending that he had. At one point, she sensed that she was not wearing a condom and tried to stop the sexual relationship. The accused, after “a short period of time”, interrupted intercourse, “withdrew, got dressed and left the place, but not before throwing the unused condom” on the ground after getting out of the car. As a result, the woman contracted a sexually transmitted disease.