Bar España hoax trial postponed to October in Spain

Bar España hoax trial postponed to October

The trial against those who spread the "Bar España" case now has a date: October 16, 2026, at Penal Court No. 5 in Castellón de la Plana. The hearing, originally scheduled for September 21-30, was delayed due to scheduling conflicts within the prosecutor's office. The prosecution seeks 40 years in prison for one defendant, sparking intense debate over the proportionality of sentences for disseminating unverified information.

Dating back to 2013, this case has undergone numerous procedural twists. Of the original 25 defendants, only 6 will stand trial. Conversations suggest several may avoid conviction: one due to mental incapacity, another already fined €20,000, and others lacking sufficient evidence. The process has become symbolic of the slowness of Spanish justice and the perception that certain topics are taboo.

Why is the Bar España trial delayed?

According to available information, the rescheduling stems from the prosecutor's office being unavailable during the original September dates. The trial will last six days, two fewer than initially planned. The coincidence with the main defendant’s birthday and his daughter’s birthday week has been interpreted by him as potential retaliation, though no evidence supports this claim. Judicial calendars are complex, and delays are common.

The hearing will take place at Penal Court No. 5, located on Bulevar Blasco Ibáñez in Castellón. The defendant intends to appear outside the courthouse before 9 AM. Media anticipation is high, although the defendant doubts coverage will match the intensity seen in similar cases.

Requested sentences and perceived disproportion

The request for 40 years in prison for one defendant has drawn significant criticism. This figure is compared to sentences in other sensual abuse cases, such as Mónica Oltra’s ex-husband, convicted to five years. Such disparities lead some to argue the judicial system prioritizes protecting certain interests over prosecuting serious crimes.

The main defendant claims he faces a "ritual sacrifice," arguing the trial’s true aim is not the Bar España case but silencing undesirables. Supporters contend spreading info on alleged pedophilia rings shouldn’t carry such harsh penalties, especially if accusations aren’t proven false. Others believe spreading hoaxes without proof can ruin lives, warranting strict legal action.

Media role and censorship

A frequently noted aspect is the lack of media coverage. Journalists like Albert Castillón and Oriol Clavell, who reported on the case, haven’t been called as witnesses. Documentaries like "Astasastasastasastasastasastasastas al descubierto" were also excluded. This contrasts sharply with cases like La Manada (San Fermínes), which overshadowed any documentary about Bar España.

Precautionary measures restrict the defendant from speaking freely, while others, like YouTuber "Las Cloacas del Sistema," continue disseminating information without apparent consequences. This asymmetry fuels theories that the system protects some while punishing others.

Bar España: A three-decade hoax

Journalist Pablo Ramón Ochoa, writing for El Periódico de Aragón, labels Bar España a "three-decade hoax." He argues pedophilia ring stories never existed, focusing the trial on those allegedly inventing them. Defendants’ supporters contest this, claiming the case had merit and justice was manipulated to cover up real culprits.

The debate references the "painter child" case, long considered resolved but peine with new revelations. This parallel suggests Spanish justice has neglected cases involving influential figures.

Uncertain future for the trial

Pending official confirmation, the trial is expected in October 2026. The defendant hopes for a positive outcome but antiestéticars it becoming a media circus. A plea deal isn’t ruled out, though he vows to fight until the end.

Meanwhile, the case generates extensive discussion online. The perception that justice isn’t equal for all looms over proceedings that, regardless of the verdict, will deeply impact public trust in Spain’s judiciary.