Encamp 'Hammer Thief' Faces Parole in February After Hotel Robbery Sentence

A 24-year-old Encamp resident, known as the "hammer thief," faces potential release on parole in February if the Tribunal de Corts' first-instance sentence is upheld, following his conviction for robbing a central hotel in the parish.

The court imposed a four-year prison term—two years to be served and two suspended—along with a €1,000 fine across all counts and payment of court costs. This marked a substantial reduction from the prosecution's request for six and a half years of custody. The defendant, detained at La Comella since shortly after the 23 August 2025 incident, has shown good behaviour and nearly completed a year in pre-trial custody.

New details on his release timeline emerged this week. His defence is reviewing the ruling to decide on an appeal, while anticipating a likely prosecutorial challenge. If confirmed, he could access semi-liberty as early as November upon securing employment, requiring only overnight stays at La Comella, followed by full parole in February.

The conviction covered qualified robbery with weapon use, attempted breaking and entering, attempted scaled burglary of an inhabited home, and possession and consumption of toxic drugs. Compensation includes €718.20 to Encamp council for tourist office window damage and moral harm from his prior break-in attempt, plus €5,000 to the night receptionist. The worker, threatened with the hammer and forced to hand over around €900 from the cash register—later recovered by police—reported fearing for his life and suffering lasting psychological effects that diminished his job security.

Under the influence of alcohol and cocaine that morning, the defendant first hammered the tourist office door in Plaça del Consell, then tried scaling a private garden fence in Carrer Estret without success, before targeting the hotel in Plaça dels Arínsols. Police arrested him two days later after he confessed fully.

At the April trial, he expressed remorse, blaming a depressive, impulsive episode tied to substance use, addictions stemming from his mother's death in a traffic accident, and frustration over the lenient sentencing of the driver involved. His cooperation, personal circumstances, and prison reflection on his addictions contributed to the lighter penalty. The ruling upheld his full responsibility despite the reductions.