A shocking absurdity

[NormanH]

The rules about how a 'garde à vue' should be conducted were very much tightened up in April 2011, including the condition that a lawyer should be present from the very beginning. That can be seen as a good or a bad thing depending on your point of view.

What shocks me is that it has been applied retroactively in this following case, and the confession obtained disallowed even though those regulations weren't in force at the time of the investigation.

It's a nasty case of the rape and murder of a 17 yr old on New year's day 2011

http://www.midilibre.fr/2012/06/07/meurtre-du-jour-de-l-an-tous-les-aveux-du-suspect-annules,513439.php

[idun]

Shocking, you are right!!! It truly is disgraceful!

[Chancer]

Is it being applied retrospectively in all cases? If so how far back are they going?

Is there perhaps some doubt over the confessions and how they were obtained?

[NormanH]

In this particular case the defence say that the suspect didn't have his lawyer present from the beginning of the questioning, which is true, but wasn't a requirement at that time.

He confessed in some detail, but since his lawyers have found this loophole he says he can't remember what happened.

http://www.midilibre.fr/2012/04/21/des-centaines-de-personnes-marchent-pour-lea,489700.php

I can't answer your first two questions.

[HoneySuckleDreams]

this is a small hijack...sorry...

Norman could you provide a link to the new rules?

My No2, 16ry old, son has just had to give an hour long statement with a Gendarmette (a real pute apparently), on his own, in a closed room, concerning the motorbike-car collision accident that he and his mum were in this week. I'm sure he should have had someone else present.

 

Back on thread... the law is an ass -

why is ass blanked out?  

 

OK... the law is a long-eared, slow, patient, sure-footed domesticated mammal, Equus asinus, related to the horse, used chiefly as a beast of burden

[NormanH]

I think this is the law.

You will have to click through the sections

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000023860729

On the other hand what your son experienced doesn't sound like a 'garde à vue' which is  a real grilling of a suspect.

"La principale innovation du texte consiste en la définition inédite et précise de la garde à vue et de ses motifs. En effet, l'article 62-2 du Code de procédure pénale dispose que "la

garde à vue est une mesure de contrainte décidée par un officier de

police judiciaire, sous le contrôle de l'autorité judiciaire, par

laquelle une personne à l'encontre de laquelle il existe une ou

plusieurs raisons plausibles de soupçonner qu'elle a commis ou tenté de

commettre un crime ou un délit puni d'une peine d'emprisonnement est

maintenue à la disposition des enquêteurs"

http://www.net-iris.fr/veille-juridique/dossier/25642/la-reforme-de-la-garde-a-vue.php

[cooperlola]

I am all in favour of the new ruling and regs, they protect us all.  However, doing this retrospectively is fraught with dangers, not just in this particular case.  If the parties did the right thing as it was known by them all to be at the time then how can they be adjudged as being in the wrong in any way?  I can see the courts being flooded with a whole bunch of convicted criminals looking to use this loophole.  As you say Norman, absurd (and that's being polite.)