The JDD. Do you think that this trial goes beyond the legal framework to become political, as the RN suggests by denouncing “relentlessness”?
Jean-Yves Le Borgne. The context is obviously political, and I understand that the people concerned are transforming the situation by claiming that they are being put on political trial. However, I do not believe that this legal difficulty should be posed in polemical terms. We are faced with requisitions, that is to say the position of the party which supports the accusation in the criminal trial. It would be extraordinary, although it could happen exceptionally, for the prosecution to drop charges. This is part of the role of this institution. The real question is whether the terms and dimensions of this accusation are normal or excessive. Furthermore, it is essential to remember that the requisitions do not prejudge a conviction, the court remaining the sole judge of the facts.
Do you think it would be appropriate to abolish the provisional execution of sentences for personalities likely to run in the presidential election?
As a lawyer specializing in criminal law, I do not wish to enter into a passionate controversy. Ineligibility is provided for by law. While it was optional for a long time, it became automatic in 2017, although the judge can rule it out depending on the circumstances or the personality concerned. As for provisional execution, it is rare in criminal matters. This concept raises the question of the irreparable consequences if the initial decision were to be overturned. This is why the possible ineligibility of Marine Le Pen raises fundamental questions. In his case, is it so urgent to declare ineligibility? Is there a threat justifying a departure from the principles of the presumption of innocence? Personally, I think that such a derogation is only justified in truly exceptional cases. Here, caution seems to be required.
The real question is whether the terms and dimensions of this accusation are normal or excessive.
Can justice, as the RN denounces, be influenced by political sympathies or used for partisan purposes?
The rest after this ad
If by “instrumentalized” we mean external pressure on justice, I don’t believe it. It is possible that judges have personal inclinations or preferences. However, my experience shows that magistrates make considerable efforts not to be guided by their own opinions. They are very attentive to their duty of impartiality. Concerning this case, the requisitions may seem strong, almost violent, but they are part of the position taken by the prosecution, which seeks to make an impression. It is up to the court to keep the measure and judge with complete independence. The main thing here is not to confuse the passion of an indictment with an attack on the impartiality of justice. The court is sovereign, and I remain convinced that judges uphold their duty of fairness, even in such sensitive contexts.
