Miguel Ángel Campos, a journalist for SER radio, found himself at the center of a high-profile legal case involving prosecutor Álvaro García Ortiz. Campos was the first to report the appearance of an email in the public domain that became a key piece of evidence in the case. According to him, he obtained access to the document long before the prosecutor did, and firmly denied that the prosecutor’s office chief was his source. Campos maintained that he had no contact with García Ortiz on the day of publication and only received permission to release the information after another newspaper published a distorted version of the email.
However, the court ruling cast doubt on this testimony. The judges not only questioned the credibility of the journalist’s account but also pointed out inconsistencies between his version of events and the official record. Campos publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the court’s decision, stating that if his testimony is in doubt, the Supreme Court must initiate a review of all journalists who testified in the case. He stressed that the court had previously warned about the potential consequences of false testimony, and now, in his view, must apply these measures consistently.
The court’s position
The court’s decision notes that the judges made efforts not to question the reputations of the journalists who testified. However, the verdict contains a direct contradiction between the ‘proven facts’ presented and Campos’s version of events. Several journalists claimed they had access to the letter before the prosecutor did, but the court did not see their statements as sufficient grounds to acquit García Ortiz.
The judges relied on an analysis of phone records, which showed a four-second call between Campos and the prosecutor on the night of March 13. According to the court, this could indicate a possible transfer of information, even though the journalist insisted that there was no conversation and the call went to voicemail. The judges noted that this was the only recorded call lasting four seconds, while all other missed calls were logged as zero seconds.
Defense arguments
During an appearance on Hora 25, Campos reacted sharply to the court’s findings. He said it would have been impossible to relay such important information in just four seconds, especially since the prosecutor did not have the letter at that time. The journalist stressed that his source strictly forbade publication until a distorted version appeared in another newspaper, and only then did he receive permission to publish.
The dissenting opinion of two judges, who argued for the prosecutor’s acquittal, also questioned the reasoning of the majority. They noted that the assumption that information was transmitted in four seconds seemed contrived and was not supported by any objective evidence. In their view, the court chose the interpretation of events least favorable to García Ortiz, disregarding the presumption of innocence.
Reaction from the journalism community
The situation sparked widespread concern among journalists covering the trial. Many expressed unease that their testimonies were either ignored or called into question without sufficient grounds. Campos stated that he feels pressured and believes the court acted in the interest of the prosecution rather than conducting an objective investigation.
During the hearings, journalists invoked professional secrecy and refused to disclose their sources. However, the court did not initiate proceedings for possible perjury, even though it did not accept their statements as evidence in favor of the defendant. This decision raised questions about double standards and to what extent the court is prepared to uphold the rights of witnesses and participants in the process.
Further developments
Campos continues to insist on the need for an official review of the testimonies given by all journalists involved in the case. He believes this is the only way to restore trust in the judicial system and avoid accusations of bias. Meanwhile, court representatives have yet to comment on the possibility of overturning the decision or launching a new investigation.
Public interest in the case remains high. Questions about the transparency of legal proceedings and the protection of witness rights are at the forefront of the discussion. Many observers note that the situation could set a precedent for future cases involving the media and the relationship between journalists and the judiciary.
In case you weren’t aware, Miguel Ángel Campos is a well-known Spanish journalist specializing in court reporting and investigations. He works for Cadena SER and has covered several high-profile trials in Spain. Álvaro García Ortiz is the country’s Attorney General and has become a central figure in one of the most widely discussed cases in recent years. The Supreme Court of Spain (Tribunal Supremo) is the highest judicial authority, and its decisions have a significant impact on the nation’s legal system.
