Pierre Palmade will know on Monday if he escapes pre-trial detention. Since last Friday, the comedian, suspected of having caused a serious accident while under the influence of cocaine, has been under house arrest in the addiction service of a hospital in the Paris region. But the Melun prosecutor’s office, which had requested his placement in pre-trial detention after his indictment for “homicide and involuntary injuries by a driver who used narcotics in a state of legal recidivism” had immediately appealed. It is now up to the investigating chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal to decide. The magistrates, who debated behind closed doors for an hour on Friday, put their decision under advisement until Monday morning.
In the Palmade case, as in others less publicized, the judges must justify their decision based on thearticle 144 of the criminal procedure code. “The principle is freedom. Pre-trial detention is only possible if judicial control or placement under an electronic bracelet is not possible. As an exception, there may be a placement in pre-trial detention if certain criteria defined in the law are respected”, underlines Me Mandine Blondin, criminal lawyer at the bar of Versailles (Yvelines).
A “very framed” measure
In the context of a judicial investigation, the law provides that a person under investigation may be imprisoned in order to “preserve evidence or clues”, to be “protected”, to “guarantee” his presentation to the justice, to prevent it from consulting with accomplices, or exerting pressure on witnesses or victims. Detention can only be ordered if it incurs “a criminal sentence”, “a correctional sentence of a duration equal to or greater than three years’ imprisonment”, or if it evades the obligations of its judicial control.
The prosecution may then, first, request the provisional detention of a suspect by explaining why it is necessary. “The investigating judge is not obliged to follow the requisitions of the prosecution and can decide to release them or place them under judicial supervision”, indicates Ludovic Friat, president of the USM (Union Syndicale des Magistrats ). “On the other hand, if he considers that detention is necessary, he refers the case to the judge of freedoms and detention. The latter will make his decision after a contradictory debate. It must be justified in law and in fact, that is to say that it must explain how the criteria provided for by law apply to the file, he continues. It’s very framed. »
Appeal or release
If imprisoned, the defendant can still appeal or file a request for release. If he refuses it, the examining magistrate must, again, give reasons for his decision. The investigating judge may always, during the proceedings, order his release if he considers that his detention is no longer necessary.
Another scenario: provisional detention can also be decided within the framework of a trial in immediate appearance. “A hearing can be postponed, either because the defendant asks for time to prepare his defense, or because there are too many cases to be tried on the same day. A debate then opens to find out what to do with the defendant while waiting for the next hearing, observes Me Mandine Blondin. He is either released under judicial supervision, assigned to residence or placed in pre-trial detention. It is the criminal court that decides, based on the criteria defined in the code of criminal procedure. The judge of freedom and detention is not seized in this case.
“Mass incarcerations”
According OIP figures (International Prison Observatory), nearly 20,000 people were placed in pre-trial detention at the end of 2022. “These massive incarcerations contribute greatly to prison overcrowding and subject defendants and convicted prisoners to particularly unworthy living conditions”, writes association. Thus, in 2021, more than 30,000 people were imprisoned “most often for a few days, pending a hearing”, adds the OIP. In the same year, 25,000 people were sent behind bars after a warrant of committal was issued as part of an investigation.
“In recent years, we have tried to develop alternatives to incarceration, at the level of instruction or while awaiting trial, but with moderate success”, recognizes the president of the USM. And Ludovic Friat to insist: “We must not forget that people in pre-trial detention are presumed innocent and not presumed guilty. It is not a pre-sentence. In the event of a subsequent conviction, the period of detention already carried out will nevertheless be charged to the sentence that will have to be served. Finally, if the person who had been imprisoned is released, acquitted or is the subject of a dismissal order, he can ask the State to be compensated.