It was before a single judge of the Pontoise court that Irad appeared, on September 18, for intentional violence with a weapon which caused a total interruption of work of 10 days. He crashed his van into a convenience store who had started removing it, illegally parked on a highway, at night. He completely denies the facts and his lawyer, furious, denies even more forcefully.
It was near the town of Mareil-en-France, while patrolling the N104 on October 5, 2023, that Yanis saw a vehicle parked astride the emergency lane and the lane. RIGHT. The van, with its lights off, represents a danger on this busy road; especially at night. It is 10:45 p.m., Yanis positions himself behind the parked vehicle, places a light signal to warn other vehicles and contacts the CRS to inform them that he must remove a vehicle. The procedure requires the presence of a national police force.
He is lowering the platform to bring up the van when, at 11:05 p.m., two men emerge from the bushes. They apologize for having to park like this; a pressing need, they explain, forced them to make an emergency stop. They are ready to go, no need to remove the vehicle. The two men get into the van. Yanis asks them to stay there, because the procedure has started and they must wait for the police patrol. The two men get into the van and Irad drives off without waiting, hits Yanis who bounces off the bumper, and flees.
“It was he who was violent by tapping on my hood”
We'll never find the passenger, but we found Irad. He was heard on January 18, 2024 and told the police that he was tired of waiting for the police and that he informed the repairman of his departure. “I didn't hit him, it was he who was violent by hitting my hood,” he adds.
The psychiatrist who examined the victim, a civil party at the hearing, noted a state of acute stress, latent fear and significant nightmares. He emphasizes that this state evolves into post-traumatic stress disorder. “After the accident, the agent relieved me, the CRS arrived. I don't necessarily realize what happened. I was in denial because I love my work, but it had an impact on me,” he told the audience. His partner gave birth to their first child ten days before the events.
The judge asks Yannis what he felt. “I was scared, I thought I was going to end up crushed. » The repairman explains that he was putting the hook on the front of the car, “when he accelerated: I rolled on the hood, hooked a windshield wiper and shouted 'stop'; he made a maneuver to go around the tow truck and I rolled onto the side.”
“A pigeon can do that, but a human cannot”
Irad's lawyer decided to start again and ask endless questions in which he each time inserts mini pleadings and fairly peremptory judgments against the civil party. For example: “How can you hold on to a car like that when the bumper reaches to your waist?” How do you do this and come out unscathed?
— If I may say so, you weren't there, you can't know if I was unharmed. I had pain and my head was bleeding.
—How is it possible to do that? A pigeon can do that, but a human can't.
— When a vehicle pushes you, you automatically climb onto the hood.”
The prosecutor intervenes: “this is not the victim’s trial, I would like us to have a minimum of consideration”.
Dozens of questions of this ilk sow confusion. The lawyer is surprised that no tire marks were found on the ground (the vehicle was parked on the road, editor's note). In fact, the lawyer pretends not to understand and, with a falsely naive air, asks dilatory questions, to which the civil party answers as best he can. The lawyer improvises new questions until the story no longer makes any sense, then he shakes his head with a serious and indignant air and explains that he does not understand, that in his opinion it does not matter. could have happened this way, without showing why. Then he rambles on about the indigence of the procedure (“never seen that in 30 years at the bar”) and on the almost Dreyfus-esque dimension of the accusation which overwhelms his client.
“I am not a psychopath”
Shortly before, the defendant was questioned by the judge. “So sir, what really happened today?
— When we come out of the bushes, there's a rather unpleasant repairman with us, and the police don't arrive. I tell him I'm going to leave. As soon as I turned the ignition on he came and pulled my door, I drove off and at that moment he fell out. I didn't run over him, I'm not a psychopath. I left, it's true that I should have waited for the police.
—Why would he say that? »
Yannis' lawyer asks him: “Why didn't you wait for the police?”
— For me, a repairman cannot force you to stay and wait for the police. I don't know the laws, but for me it can't. »
While he was supposed to ask questions, the defense lawyer began a closing argument. He makes hypotheses to which he responds, in a demonstration whose logic only he seems to understand.
Today, Yannis is no longer on duty on the highway. The defendant, never convicted, still has his license and still owns the vehicle. After requesting a referral based on civil interests, the convenience store's lawyer denounces: “We are creating absolute artistic vagueness; the questions asked of the gentleman are completely off topic,” she laments.
The prosecutor, until then silent, but whose closed and altogether annoyed face could be observed, spoke up for his requisitions. “I admit to you,” he said, “that I have difficulty understanding the turn of this audience. We should ensure that we do not make a mistake in the trial. »
He gives his vision of things. “These gentlemen come from the sidelines and invent a fable for us with great confidence. They say it's to relieve themselves, we know very well that it's not for that. An officer said the next day, the same vehicle was stopped at the same location. Monsieur takes the investigators, the prosecution, and the court for what they are not, that is to say idiots. He wanted to escape police control because he knew it would lead to another investigation, and he succeeded. We couldn't control him for drugs and alcohol; he wanted to escape his responsibilities, even if it meant putting Mr. B.’s life in danger,” he snaps. “The gentleman knew very well that he was probably going to be taken into custody for burglary. » Nearby, a fenced property; in the fence, gaping holes made with pliers.
“We didn’t get far from the tragedy! »
On the facts, he brushes it off: “We have the statements of the two agents. Mr. B. Was dragged 50 meters, he does not come a year after the events to invent a trauma for us which was in any case noted by a psychologist. We haven't gone far from the drama! »
He requires six months in prison with probation, confiscation of the vehicle, cancellation of his license and a ban on re-passing it for three years. 4,000 euros fine, “because in my opinion, there was a lucrative activity behind all that”.
The lawyer is stunned. “I confess to you, Madam President, I have more votes. I have 30 years as a lawyer and this is the first time I have heard requisitions of this kind. It’s a settling of scores, a punishment because we wanted the truth,” and it lasts exactly 37 minutes, before the judge suspends the hearing and returns to finally sentence Irad to the requisitions. However, reducing the fine to 2,000 euros and the period of ban on repeating the license to one year. The lawyer did not wait for the decision.
