The Public Prosecutor’s Office declined to appear on Wednesday
The Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is requesting confirmation of the first instance judgment – namely 90 day fines suspended for two years for negligent homicide – declined to appear on Wednesday. At first instance, he stressed that “the disputed rope presented a dangerous obstacle and the absence of flags did not comply with the standards in force”. The skier could therefore not detect his presence in time.
However, according to him, it was “obvious” that it was the defendant’s responsibility to identify the dangers on the slopes and to make them safe. It was also his responsibility, as head of the slopes, to establish a system for monitoring the application of standards, considering it “indecent, even shocking” that he continues to speak of vagueness.
“Clear lack of organization”
The observation of this “obviousness” is not shared by the defense and its client. “In 2014, I considered that it was not within my competence to check the departure and arrival areas of the ski lifts”, where the accident took place, detailed the defendant, who also indicates having been “much marked” by this tragic event, like his entire service.
Relying on the statements of his client and numerous other people heard during the procedure, including the president of the ski lift company, Me Julien Ribordy, the defense lawyer, recalled “the blatant lack of ‘internal organization’ in terms of distribution of tasks between the ski lift service and that of slope safety, as well as the absence of formal specifications.
This “deficiency” was only detected after the accident and led to the establishment of specifications clarifying the tasks of the slope manager in 2019. The defense also wondered why the Public Prosecutor did not determine who laid this rope by questioning the few people who were working in the area at that time. “Why put everything on my client’s back?” asked Julien Ribordy, arguing for acquittal. Knowing exactly who laid this rope “would not have changed anything, because of the chain of responsibility,” according to the Public Prosecutor. The accused, as head of security for the ski area, should have “identified and detected this problem before the accident.”
Reduce the pain
In a final round, the defense called on the court to mitigate its client’s sentence, in the event that it found him guilty. And this, because of temporality. “The facts occurred almost a decade ago, during which the defendant had to bear this charge.” And to deplore at the same time, the absence of the Public Prosecutor’s Office before the cantonal court.
“The first instance followed our argument. For us, justice has been done. We decided to use our right not to appear for two reasons,” said Attorney General Beatrice Pilloud, contacted after the hearing. “Legally, there was no new element that emerged from the appeal. And humanly, this type of case is dramatic both for the family of the victim and for the person who is held responsible for his death,” she continues, believing that it was thus not necessary “to insist on the spot with the same indictment, the court already having the entire file in hand.
Also questioned about the length of the procedure – the prosecution took eight years to conclude its indictment with a view to the first instance – Beatrice Pilloud notes that the Public Prosecutor’s Office, in this case, also wanted to leave sufficient space to the civil party to negotiate a transaction with Téléverbier. After this period of suspension, the investigation resumed without delay. The victim’s family withdrew from the procedure after concluding a compensation agreement with the company in 2021.
