The television cook Alberto Chicote has been acquitted of the coercion, during the recording of the program Are you going to eat it ?, of which the owner of a Chinese restaurant in Saragossa accused him. The magistrate in charge of the case considers that the hotelier has not been able to prove the crime for which he brought the popular chef to trial. The restaurant closed after being put in between said at the sanitary level.
The signer of the judgment, the head of the Court of Instruction number 3 of Zaragoza, Mercedes Terrer, notes that “it has not been proven that the complainant showed the accused, or any of the members of the recording team that accompanied him, his express opposition to their entering or recording in the areas in the interior areas of the establishment he ran.” Remember that it is the prosecution who has to carry out the burden of proof and then point out “there is nothing “that the complainant spoke with Alberto Chicote del Olmo to agree on the conditions of his authorization to access the premises, “nor that in the course of the police intervention he showed the accused or the persons accompanying him his refusal to continue recording, to enter any of the premises, to open a closet or refrigerator, or to record something “.
“Nor is it proven that the owner of the restaurant complained to the Local Police of Zaragoza on the performance of the inspection before the recording cameras, the taking of images or the conduct of Chicote “, adds the judge.
In fact, the signatory of the ruling highlights that the images from the security cameras show that the complainant accepted, consented to or tolerated the action that the accused was taking. It also emphasizes that the complaint to the National Police Corps was filed the day after the recording of the program that was not broadcast as a precautionary measure in case any rights had been infringed.
To reach this conclusion, the judge analyzes all the statements of the witnesses. From the hotelier to the director of the program produced by Quartz, passing through the agents of the Local Police who were present at the time of the inspection and who declared in favor of the cook. They, as published by this newspaper, assured that neither the complainant nor his wife said anything contrary to the recording. “His attitude was to apologize, like when they had a five-kilo jar of unrefrigerated mayonnaise,” said one of the policemen. Furthermore, the communication officer of the police force assured that it was the program that accompanied them in a routine inspection and that they had the obligation to leave the premises and stop recording if any owner or manager of a bar refused the presence of television cameras.
Chicote’s defense requested that the complainant be ordered to pay the costs for acting “in bad faith or recklessness” against the cook, although the magistrate has not accepted it. The ruling is actionable.