“We’ll see you again, Philippine.” This hope does not prevent our tears, but it enlightens them”launched Father Pierre-Hervé Grosjean, responsible for saying Philippine’s burial mass on Friday September 27. Bernanos defined hope in his own way, as a “despair overcome”… Because the temptation to despair goes far beyond Philippine’s family, and lies in anger at the repetition, and in the stubborn feeling of a cruel lack of justice. Moreover, the priest has not escaped from the realities of this world: “Of course, human justice will be necessary,” he repeated twice. But this justice continues to fuel debate. This time because of the background of the person who is the alleged killer of Philippine.
Taha O arrived in France at the age of 17, in June 2019, via Spain, with a tourist visa in his pocket. A minor, he was in any case indeportable due to the European Convention on the Rights of the Child, by which France has undertaken since 1990 to consider any minor as one of its children. It was therefore Child Welfare – already overloaded – which took him in… for three months.
In September 2019, Taha O. was arrested after raping a young student in a wood in Val d’Oise. And placed in pre-trial detention, until his trial before a Juvenile Assize Court. In October 2021, the jurors returned their verdict: seven years in prison.
But three years later, he was released from prison. Including the time spent in pre-trial detention, the inmate has served more than half of his sentence and can therefore request this release. It is the operation of the remissions or adjustments of sentences provided for by law, which so often generates incomprehension in the country when those who should have been in prison – because of the sentence handed down – become new victims.
The judicial and administrative process of the foreigner in an irregular situation
If he is released before the end of his prison sentence, Taha O. is, however, immediately taken to the administrative detention center (CRA) in Metz. In the meantime, he was effectively ordered to leave French territory (OQTF). This administrative decision is issued by the prefecture: most often, the foreigner then has 30 days to leave the territory by their own means. Which he almost never does. In certain cases governed by the code of entry and residence of foreigners and the right to asylum (Ceseda), the prefecture accompanies this decision with placement in a detention center.
The rest after this ad
Detention required as short as possible, to keep the foreigner available for forced removal. This is what the Yonne prefecture decided for Taha O. last June. A race against time begins: the retention period is not 90 days, but a maximum of 90 days. An important nuance because on four occasions during this period, the prefecture must convince the judge of freedoms and detention that this detention is the shortest possible in order to organize the departure. She must therefore, each time, prove that the trip is organized, that the consulate of the country of origin has been contacted, and that departure is small and close.
Three times, the judge of freedoms and detention extended the detention of Taha O. On the 75th day, the possible last extension of the file is qualified, by the law again, as exceptional. Very precise criteria must be respected and motivated by the judge, which are necessarily discussed by the foreigner’s lawyer. In the public debate, two people have intervened in recent days: a police officer who had investigated the first rape of Taha O. describes a “predator” ; the one who was then his lawyer gives a completely different perspective: “ We feared a suicide, not a recurrence! ». We understand how complicated the debates must be. It is up to the judge alone to assess a possible risk of disturbing public order: a conviction for rape is not enough, under the law, to justify the extension of detention with a view to removal…
The judge, that day, considered that the legal conditions for extension were not met. But since she considers at the same time that the disturbance of public order cannot be excluded either, she decides to place him under house arrest, in a hotel supported by the General Directorate of Foreigners in France (DGEF) . Taha O. will never join him. Two days later, Morocco finally sent the consular pass necessary for the expulsion, but Taha O. disappeared. A report is finally made to the prosecutor. Too late.
Here again, there is incomprehension among many French people, all political affinities combined: far from legal debates and random interpretations of equivocal texts, the question is striking in its simplicity: why don’t we give ourselves the means to expel illegal aliens who have already been convicted?
A debate on the definition of justice
Everyone is looking for someone responsible: the judge? The jurors? The sentence enforcement judge? The prefecture? The judge of freedoms and detention? The prosecutor absent? Morocco which did not respond in time to recover its national? The legislator who accumulates texts whose equivocality tirelessly fuels our debates?
The contradictory injunctions of political leaders who multiply the possibilities of banning French territory while making their application impossible through an accumulation of restrictions? The Quai d’Orsay which fails to twist the arm of uncooperative countries of origin in the recovery of their nationals?
This litany is repeated every time a new innocent face comes to haunt our news. To the point of making the Minister of the Interior Bruno Retailleau react, in the columns of the JDD: “We reach a point of imbalance where the rules end up protecting dangerous individuals more than victims and society. We can no longer accept protecting ourselves behind rules of law that do not protect our population. When the rules are faulty, they must be changed, whether on early releases, penal response, sentence reductions, the length of detention, the conditions of expulsion, the non-suspensive appeal of the prefects at the time of release into a CRA. Such tragedies must not happen again. »
Some deny the relevance of this desire for change, and the sincerity of those who demand accountability and political decisions. They call this anger ” recovery “. A word that no one draws, however, when the same thing is demanded on the sidelines of the atrocious trial of Dominique Pélicot; after the release of a book on consent, or when a refusal to comply results in the death of the driver… Why would it be legitimate to demand justice for such a victim; and illegitimate for another depending on the profile of the accused?
It is normal for the evolution of our justice system to give rise to debate. It is healthy for disagreements to be expressed. It is the rule in a democracy that opposing visions clash. But the fact that some are prohibited from giving theirs, even if it means being defeated at the polls, is less so. Especially since survey after study, the French seem to express a simple request: that justice finds the means to ensure its mission of protecting the innocent.
