As part of their appeal trial, the prosecution requested, on Friday, confirmation of the sentences of four people, prosecuted after the violence that occurred at the Faculty of Law of Montpellier (Hérault), on the night of March 22 to 23, 2018. That night, in a context of social protest, a dozen students and activists, who occupied an amphitheater, were violently expelled. Their attackers, some hooded, were armed with boards or an electric pulse gun.
Six months in prison were required against a law professor, Jean-Luc Coronel. ” [Jean-Luc] Coronel is at the initiative, the development, the organization, the recruitment. He gives the “Go”, his involvement is important. He is not welcome to teach at the faculty, ”explained the university lawyer. It was also demanded against this professor the confirmation of the prohibition of any public office for one year. “Such a ban, even for a limited period, is equivalent for a civil servant to being struck off, it would be the professional death penalty,” pleaded his lawyer, Laurent Libelle. “It is his head that I place in your hands.”
For the lawyer of the professor of law, the occupants are not all “nice students”
If he admits having entered among the first in the amphitheater, the professor maintains that he acted under the authority of the dean, Philippe Pétel, who did not appeal his conviction. Laurent Libelle, Jean-Luc Coronel’s lawyer, considered that it was necessary to take into account the “context”, that the occupants were far from all being “nice students”, but, for some, “professional activists” , or even “pathogens”.
The Advocate General demanded, against the companion of the professor, suspected of having recruited the other members of the commando, the confirmation of his sentence to 14 months in prison, including six months firm. Martial Roudier, son of the founder of the Ligue du Midi, an identity group, denied ever having entered law school. The Advocate General demanded confirmation of his one-year prison sentence. Finally, twelve months in prison, including six firm, were required against an ex-soldier, who claimed his participation, considering that he had “put a little good in a big mess”.