‘I’ll make sure you remember my name’: ‘toxic’ relationship ends with woman cleared of four offences in Ibiza

A relationship described as “markedly toxic, ambivalent and two-sided”, but without sufficient grounds to convict an Ibiza woman of the four offences alleged by her former partner: harassment, degrading treatment, threats and domestic abuse.

That was the conclusion reached by the Balearic Islands Provincial Court, which dismissed the complainant’s appeal and upheld the acquittal handed down by the Ibiza Court of First Instance.

The complainant had asked the Provincial Court to partially overturn the original ruling and convict the woman. He argued that the Ibiza court had played down incidents that, in his view, amounted to criminal conduct, including insults, threatening remarks and a physical confrontation.

The Provincial Court, however, found that the appeal did not identify a genuine error of law, but instead challenged the way the evidence had been assessed at the original trial. According to the ruling, the case involved a dysfunctional relationship rather than criminal behaviour.

One of the incidents under dispute concerned an alleged slap or blow delivered by the defendant. The original judgment considered it in the context of separate proceedings in which the complainant had entered the woman’s home without her consent and assaulted a man who was with her.

The ruling states that the defendant, who was “overwhelmed” and “in a state of shock”, gave him a light push with her hand in order to move him aside and leave.

‘You don’t know who you’re talking to’

Regarding the alleged insults and threats, the public prosecutor opposed the appeal and argued that statements such as “you don’t know who you’re talking to” and “I’ll make sure you remember my name” had correctly been considered ambiguous, vague and insufficient to constitute a criminal threat.

The prosecution also stressed that there was no evidence of an objectively reasonable fear or of any specific harm being threatened.

The Provincial Court acknowledged that some parts of the original judgment were “not expressed with the desired clarity”. It also said that certain statements could not be dismissed as non-criminal simply because they were common within a toxic relationship.

Nevertheless, the judges concluded that the remarks could not be assessed in isolation. They had to be considered within the context of a complex relationship involving emotional dependency, communication breakdowns, constant recriminations, infidelity, emotional blackmail and mutual punishment.

The court also noted that the facts established in the acquittal did not include insults, threats or injuries that would allow the defendant’s conduct to be directly classified as a criminal offence.

It therefore ruled that there were no grounds to overturn the acquittal and replace it with a conviction on appeal.