The Supreme Court sets the limits of digital defencelessness: a computer glitch alone cannot annul proceedings

A file that will not open can hamper a defence, but identifying the fault is not enough to obtain nullity. Tirant Prime summarises a Supreme Court criminal decision requiring the defence to specify which evidence remained inaccessible and how that affected the proceedings.

From error to harm

The analysis distinguishes an IT problem from an actual loss of defence opportunities. In the reported case, copies had been supplied through alternative channels and the documents that still could not be consulted were not identified precisely enough.

The same distinction applies to recordings. Access to the original is necessary to check voices, content or transcripts; that does not mean every conversation must be played in full at trial.

When requesting playback of a passage, the defence must identify what it seeks to check and why it matters to the outcome. The report says general requests to hear numerous files did not establish that specific usefulness, including on appeal.

The source gives the editorial reference TOL11.278.401. The official judgment has not been checked here; this account presents the criterion as explained by Tirant, subject to that sourcing limit.

Source: Tirant Prime, 2 November 2026. Consulted on 4 November.

Related links

• Judgment 2668/2026: judicial error in the response to a criminal appeal
• The Supreme Court and the costs of the legal profession in consumer cases
• The Spanish legal profession's digital justice course

Source scope: this report is based on the cited press coverage. Agente Lex has not independently checked the full judgment here.