During his hearing by the Senate fact-finding mission on the reform of the judicial police (PJ), on Wednesday November 9, 2022, the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation, François Molins, warned against a “political interference” due to the strengthening of the prefect’s authority over the judicial police, “the only services to maintain quality in surveys”.
During his hearing in the Senate on November 9, the former public prosecutor of the Republic of Paris François Molins expressed strong criticism of the project to reform the judicial police, led by the Minister of the Interior, Gérald Darmanin. “It is rare to see a project generate such unanimity in the reviews”is surprised Mr. Molins in his speech. “Few projects manage to bring together against him (Gérald Darmanin, editor’s note) police officers, magistrates and lawyers”.
Read also: Reform of the judicial police: in demonstration in Toulon, the police are preparing for a national sling
What is it about ? The reform project led by Gérald Darmanin intends to put an end to the “silo organization” of the police. The reform plans to merge public security, border police, intelligence and judicial police personnel under the authority of a “Departmental Director of the National Police”. (DDPN). This is placed under the authority of the prefect of the department.
The prefect would thus hold authority over all of these services, but also the personnel of the judicial police. The argument of the Minister of the Interior is to allow them to “bringing their expertise to all staff in this new field of investigation”.
A principle with constitutional value flouted?
The Attorney General at the Court of Cassation immediately pointed out the main problem that this reform project can generate. François Molins recalled that “the principle of free choice of the investigating service by the public prosecutor or the investigating judge is an essential means of implementing the criminal policy which has been decided by the government”.
In other words, this reform project constitutes “a threat to the independence of the judiciary”, Article 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulating that the judicial police is exercised under the authority of magistrates, prosecutors and investigating judges. A principle [la séparation des pouvoirs] of constitutional value.
See also: Reform of the judicial police: “It’s a stranglehold of the executive on the judiciary!”
Faced with these fears and faced with the unanimity of the critics, Gérald Darmanin mentioned, according to Mr. Molins, “guarantees of the principle of direction of the PJ by the prosecutors. I heard that the zonal level would be preserved, that there would be no departmentalization of the judicial police, nor any modification of their offices and their branches”the attorney general told the Senate.
See also: Reform of the judicial police: Christophe Olivieri sounds the charge and challenges the Minister of the Interior
Gérald Darmanin, during the examination of the Lopmi law in the Senate, on October 11, expressed his willingness to let go of ballast in the face of these criticisms: “Do you want us to write that we leave judges with free instruction and free choice of services? I agree. Do you want us to write that no PJ cops will do anything but high-end investigations? I agree. Do you want us to write that everything concerning financial crime and the probity of elected officials should not be regulated at the departmental level, but at the regional or zonal level? I agree”.
The departmental level called into question
If the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation admits that the will of the legislator to “putting order in terms of command” is legitimate because of the fall in the rate of elucidation, he underlines that the reform project could nevertheless “damage a tool that works well, namely the PJ”.
Mr. Molins considers that the level of the department is not adapted to the treatment of organized crime. “The most structured criminal groups are very mobile, they extend their ramifications throughout the territory and abroad (…) this project meets other objectives, which are those of managing the shortage of officers of the Judicial Police in public security (…) and the search for better results in the face of everyday crime and the maintenance of order”.
Read also: PJ reform: Marseille investigators fear “out of control” crime
The interlocutor of the information mission in the Senate did not fail to mention the experiments of the reform project. ”The results remain very mixed with regard to the information that comes to us from the field (…) Things that are not very positive have come to us. We were told that prosecutors were marginalized in the development and determination of criminal policy (…) The judicial authority was no longer seen as a flow manager (…) In Guadeloupe, magistrates of the prosecution were no longer free to choose the investigation service they wanted, their requests being filtered by the DDPN (Departmental Director of the National Police)”, he revealed.
Due to numerous criticisms against the reform project, the High Assembly decided to launch a fact-finding mission. Its conclusions will be submitted at the beginning of next year.
Will the conclusions be sufficient to convince Gérald Darmanin to thoroughly review the reform of the judicial police?