Fast-track trials after 17 October: judge quickly, but judge well

Since Monday, criminal courts have been trying, at a rarely seen pace, the people arrested on the sidelines of the 17 October mobilisation. The Minister of Justice, Gérald Darmanin, has asked prosecutors for a very firm response. Two opposing criticisms are being voiced: for some, the courts are too lenient; for others, they have become a tool for maintaining public order.

The facts

According to Le Club des juristes, which cites the minister's figures, 2,513 people had been taken into police custody in France in the aftermath of the violence, and more than 500 brought before prosecutors with a view to fast-track trials (comparution immédiate). On Tuesday morning, on Europe 1, Gérald Darmanin said that 123 people were behind bars, either in pre-trial detention or under a committal order, and that around fifty judicial investigations had been opened, notably into the fire at Limoges town hall.

In Paris, according to StreetPress, around 300 people had appeared before a judge by Wednesday, out of 557 held in custody. The prosecutor's office there speaks of an "unprecedented" number of referrals.

The minister also asked prosecutors, according to Le Club des juristes, to use the legal classification of organised crime. It allows police custody to be extended from 48 to 72 hours and more intrusive investigative techniques to be used, such as phone tapping.

The hearings described by Actu-Juridique and Basta! show mixed decisions. A young man who fired a firework mortar at police officers received a suspended sentence and a ban on demonstrating; another defendant was acquitted. But committal orders were also issued against defendants with no prior record, and, according to Basta!, at the Paris hearings of 19 October, all those who asked for their trial to be postponed in order to prepare their defence were placed in pre-trial detention.

The positions

For the government, firmness is a requirement. Gérald Darmanin called for being "merciless towards those who attacked police officers", according to Europe 1, which also reports his concern to prevent shopkeepers from taking the law into their own hands. This argument should not be dismissed. Shops were looted, public buildings set on fire, officers injured. A Republic that left these acts unpunished would first abandon the most modest, those whose shop or neighbourhood was ransacked.

Some even consider the response inadequate. Europe 1 examined around thirty convictions and counted only eight involving prison time without suspension, stressing the gap with the maximum sentences incurred.

Conversely, lawyers and magistrates denounce a justice system under pressure. According to StreetPress, the Syndicat de la magistrature, through its national secretary Manon Lefebvre, denounces pressure from the executive on the judiciary. Criminal lawyer Raphaël Kempf believes the stakes have changed in nature:

No longer about delivering justice, but about maintaining order. — Raphaël Kempf, lawyer, quoted by StreetPress

Basta! criticises the minister for having welcomed the first pre-trial detentions on X.

The analysis

These two opposing criticisms ultimately remind us of the same thing: the courts make individual decisions, case by case. A judge who hands a suspended sentence to a young first-time offender is not lax; they are applying the principle that sentences must be tailored to the individual. A judge who jails a repeat looter is not a minister's agent; they are doing their job.

The words of ministers must therefore remain measured. The Minister of Justice may give prosecutors general guidelines on criminal policy; that is his role. But highlighting the number of people jailed, as the minister did on Tuesday, risks blurring the line between the executive and the judiciary. The Gaullist tradition has always regarded that line as a condition of the authority of the State itself. A strong State is not one that displays figures, but one whose judgments are beyond dispute. The controversy sparked by Mediapart's revelations about the role of the territorial intelligence service, which the Prime Minister denies according to franceinfo, makes this demand for impartiality even more pressing.

The organised crime classification raises a question of the same kind. It was designed for trafficking networks and structured gangs. Extending it to rioters, many of whom, according to court reports, are young first-time offenders, risks normalising an exceptional regime. If it is justified for the real organisers, it will be up to judges to oversee its use.

Then there is fast-track justice itself. Useful for simple cases, it becomes fragile when hundreds of cases are heard in a few days, sometimes, according to a lawyer quoted by Basta!, without CCTV or body-camera footage. Assembly-line justice produces errors, and every error feeds the distrust of young people who are already angry.

Finally, the criminal response does not settle the political question. The movement, franceinfo recalls, started in secondary schools in mid-September, over educational demands. Trying the rioters is necessary; it does not exempt the authorities from listening to those who demonstrated peacefully.

Conclusion

Three days before the new mobilisation on Saturday 24 October, the government would be well advised to make two simple gestures. First, publish a detailed national record of prosecutions, sentences and acquittals, to move beyond a debate fed by anecdotes. Second, strengthen court registries and duty lawyer schemes in the busiest courts, so that speed does not come at the expense of the rights of the defence. Firmness and the rule of law are not opposed: the latter is the condition of the former. One question remains: will those in power accept that the justice system be judged on the quality of its decisions rather than on the number of people it jails?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.