After summoning the parents of minors involved in urban violence as the New Year approaches, the prefect of Bas-Rhin, Jacques Witkowski, finds himself at the heart of a controversy.
The French Lawyers’ Union (SAF) denounces interference in the judicial field and practices deemed discriminatory.
The presumption of innocence “manifestly flouted”
The SAF questions how the prefect was able to obtain sensitive information, such as the identity and nationality of the minors, but also how he was able to learn of the accusations brought against them. This data, protected by the secrecy of the investigation, should under no circumstances be accessible outside the judicial framework. The union recalls that the principle of presumption of innocence has been “manifestly violated”.
The Strasbourg public prosecutor’s office was not informed or consulted prior to these summonses. A lack of coordination which raises questions about compliance with legal procedures. Questioned on this point by AFP, the prefecture did not provide an immediate response.
By clicking on“I accept”you accept the deposit of cookies by external services and will thus have access to the content of our partners.
More information on the Cookie management policy page
I accept
-“Interference by the prefect”
The union sees this as “interference by the prefect in the powers of the public prosecutor’s office and the children’s judge” and also points to a confusion of roles between the executive and the judiciary. “The separation of powers is a pillar of the rule of law,” he recalls, while criticizing an approach which presupposes the guilt of minors before any judgment.
In the letters sent, the prefect summoned foreign parents, mentioning a possible revision of their right to stay. French parents are invited to contact social services to compensate for their possible “educational failures”.
Consult all our articles on Strasbourg
An approach of “administrative blackmail”
For the SAF, this distinction between French and foreign parents reflects a form of unequal treatment. The union insists: no legal text allows a parent’s right of residence to be linked to the behavior of a child. He describes this approach as “administrative blackmail” and criticizes an attempt to stigmatize foreign families.
Beyond legal questions, the SAF denounces an operation aimed at influencing public opinion, by playing on populist and potentially racist speeches. A strategy that the union considers dangerous, both for social cohesion and for the fundamental principles of justice.
