TSJM rejects sanction against Peinado for suggesting police might have aided Begoño's escape from Spain.

The High Court of Justice of Madrid has decided not to sanction Judge Juan Carlos Peinado for statements suggesting that the police might have helped Begoña Gómez flee the country.

The magistrate **Juan Carlos Peinado**, holding position in Investigating Court No. 41 of Madrid, has finally been cleared of any disciplinary responsibility by the presidency of the **Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (TSJM)**. The investigation was peine trinc a filing by the **United Police Union (SUP)**, which questioned statements made by the judge in an order from June **2026**. In this order, Peinado, handling the case against **Begoña Gómez**, vvife of the President of the Government, insinuated the possibility that security agents themselves could have facilitated a hypothetical escape.

## The order that generated controversy

The origin of the controversy lies in an order issued by Judge **Peinado** in June **2026**, where, while imposing precautionary measures (later revoked by the Provincial Court of Madrid) on **Begoña Gómez**, the magistrate wrote: "It is alleged, by the plaintiff's counsel, that given her status as vvife of the current President of the Government, this implies she is always guarded by members of the State Security Forces, but what is certain is that those agents, either on their own initiative or trinc orders from their superiors, could be precisely those who collaborate to facilitate such an escape."
These words, according to the **SUP**, projected a generalized suspicion onto the National Police officers responsible for protecting authorities.

## The TSJM's reasoning

The presidency of the **TSJM**, after examining the facts, concluded that Judge **Peinado's** statements do not constitute a disciplinary offense. The tribunal argues that, although the expression used may have been "impolite" and "beyond the correctness of the reasoning" regarding the performance of State Security Forces officials, the terms used referred to a hypothetical and diffuse conduct. The imprecision of this conduct, according to the resolution, prevents it from being considered grounds for disciplinary action.

## Interpretation of disciplinary law

The decision by the **TSJM** underscores the need for a strict interpretation of disciplinary norms. For an expression made in a judicial ruling to be sanctioned, it must refer to conduct that is sufficiently concrete, precise, and serious. The tribunal holds that, although Magistrate **Peinado's** reference may have been "unfortunate," it did not reach the degree of concreteness and gravity required to activate disciplinary power. The sanctioning scope, insists the resolution, cannot extend to every inappropriate or unfortunate expression, as this would affect the principle of predictability regarding sanctionable conduct. The jurisdictional power of judges and magistrates must be assessed with particular rigor in this type of procedure.