Today, it is a hearing for acts of domestic violence, the Bobigny judicial court sees them almost every day in immediate appearances… With the difference that the profile of the person in the box is out of the ordinary: she is a woman, with a clean record, socially integrated, who recognizes all the facts and regrets her actions.
With her soft voice and her self-effacing appearance, it is difficult to guess what led Madame D., 32, to land in the dock of the Bobigny judicial court. The list is however long: death threats against his ex-partner and the latter’s daughter (“I’m going to fuck you”, “I’m going to kill you”, “I’m going to fuck you”), the wearing of a category D weapon, habitual violence and intentional violence resulting in 7 days of ITT (temporary total incapacity) on his partner with the aggravating circumstance of having been committed in the presence of minors.
It was one of the children who, two days before this hearing, called the police after Madame D. went with a knife and a tear gas bomb to the home of Madame R., her partner since two years, making death threats against the latter’s daughter. For several days, Mrs. D. had been sending him threatening messages and the relationship had been verbally aggressive for a long time. “I didn’t know what to do when she came in with the knife. I thought of my daughter, I stood in front of her room, she hit me to come in,” says Madame R., sobbing.
“—You had the impression that she intended to kill your daughter?” asked the president of the court.
(Sobbing) — Yes, it wasn’t her. She was cutting out the photos hanging on the wall.
—What made her not come into your daughter’s room?
(Mrs. R. cries) — I was there, I was there. In front of his door. »
When the police arrived, they noticed that Mrs. D. had injured her finger (blood was flowing on the ground), and she was no longer holding the knife. The police do it twice so that the taser has the desired effect, suggesting that Mrs. D. is in a daze.
When the president of the court asks the defendant to speak about the alleged facts, she at no time attempts to minimize and says in a trembling voice: “I regret, I should never have done that. I apologize.
— When we come with a knife, what is it for?, asks the judge.
— I never wanted to kill Madame R’s daughter.
— Did you want to hurt? Scare?
— Non.
— Did you hit Madame R.?
— Oui.
—How do you explain it?
— I am very angry. The relationship is toxic for me. I have anger and jealousy towards his children. I’m sorry, I became aware of the atrocity.
— Where does the conflict with Madame R.’s daughter come from?
— She doesn’t participate in anything and doesn’t help Madame, with the rent, the laundry…
— You could say that it doesn’t concern you.
— Oui. »
Mrs. R. explains that the relationship with Mrs. D. was “great at the beginning”, before the violence occurred after a year, because she did not love her three children (the oldest is 27 years old). ): slaps, punches, chair shots. “When she started to be aggressive, I managed to calm her down. I defended myself, I didn’t let it happen. And I came back every time, because I loved him,” explains the victim.
Both assure the audience that they want to end their relationship. Mrs. R. describes the terror that has gripped her for two days and the occurrence of the episode of violence that led to this hearing: “Everything has changed in the last two days. I am afraid for my children,” she sobbed.
Once the facts have been established and the personality of Madame D. addressed – clean record, domiciled with her mother in Paris and on a permanent contract – the presiding judge asks the victim if she wishes to become a civil party for herself and for his two minor children who witnessed the violence. “No, no. I need my children to be followed by a psychiatrist, that’s all,” she replies. Not convinced that Mrs. D. has fully understood the issues (she is not assisted by a lawyer), the judge explains again and asks her questions again. “I don’t understand anything,” this forty-year-old finally explodes in tears. The judge resumes his explanations and insists on the relevance of becoming a civil party, in particular for his children. Mrs. R. finally opts for this option without quantifying her request and adds: “I want her [Madame D.] be followed by a psychiatrist because she has a problem in her head. And if she comes out, I’m afraid. We don’t know what will happen in six months, a year. She might have a bracelet or something, I don’t know…”
The prosecutor begins by saluting the courage of Mrs. R. for coming to the hearing and evokes the “vicious circle of love” which has maintained this relationship despite the violence. “Justice must respond adequately to protect the victim,” insists the magistrate, requesting a mixed sentence of 30 months in prison: 10 months fixed in the form of home detention. And 20 months with probationary suspension accompanied by obligations of care, work, the ban on contact and going to the victim’s home, participation in an awareness course on domestic violence, compensation for victims and the ban to carry a weapon.
“The court will have to show balance and fairness,” retorts the defense, which considers that a prison sentence is not appropriate and requests a suspended sentence with obligation of care. In the absence of medical certificates or witnesses, the lawyer also considers that the file does not make it possible to establish the materiality of the facts of the habitual violence alleged against his client.
Efforts immediately undermined by the last words of the defendant: “I deeply regret what I have committed for several months,” she said to the judges. Then she looks at her former companion: “I won’t come near you anymore. » The presiding judge asks her not to address the victim, so she adds: “I will no longer exist for her. And I didn’t really understand but I don’t want to be sentenced for ten months. »
After a brief recess of the hearing, Mrs. D. was found guilty of all the charges, including habitual violence, on the basis of photos provided by the victim and statements made at the hearing. She is sentenced to two years in prison with probationary suspension for three years and the obligations and prohibitions required by the prosecution, as well as a ban on appearing in Seine-Saint-Denis. Mrs. R. and her children are admitted as civil parties and a subsequent hearing will take place to rule on their requests.
