Extract
[...] The consequence of the collectivity of these facts lies in the distinction of the offenses retained for each author. However, after evaluating the respective facts and the collegiality of the action leading to death, although one of the authors is a minor, the Court agrees to maintain a non-disjunction of the prosecutions,). B. The non-disjunction of prosecutions during a collective commission between major and minor authors The Court states that 'it is advisable, in the interest of good administration of justice, and in particular, for the clarity of the debates, not to disjoin the prosecutions.' Although one of the three authors, a young adult of 18 years old, is involved. [...]
[...] The principle is reaffirmed that a common investigation takes precedence over the separation of collective infractions, although Mr. C is a major and it is also a principle that one cannot judge a major as a minor, the first principle prevails. However, one can imagine that it might have been different if the major had been Mr. then the main author who had delivered the knife blow and whom the Court recognizes as having an animus necandi, the outcome of the trial as well as this decision might have been modified. [...]
[...] The facts are therefore controlled by the Court, which agrees with the investigating chamber. However, the disagreement on the qualification of these facts leads to an ex officio censure of the grounds of the contested judgment, which will oblige the referral chamber to requalify the offense taking into account the presence of an animus necandi B. An ex officio censure by the Criminal Chamber obliging a requalification of the offense The Criminal Chamber affirms in its last finding «that the investigating chamber, by retaining the qualification of aggravated deadly blows on the ground that the homicidal intention, contested by the defendants, did not result from any element of the file, did not draw the consequences of its own findings ». [...]
[...] The Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation therefore hears this appeal in the present judgment. Recognizing the regularity of the procedure, it will nonetheless quash and annul all the provisions of the judgment subject to the appeal, after a review of the facts and their previous qualification, it will raise a contradiction of the motives between the facts, well recognized, but from which it results a presumption that the other elements of the file must no longer demonstrate but refute. [...]
[...] If the Court censures and requires a requalification of the facts and the offense by recognizing the intention, it also casts a careful eye on the collective character present in this case. II. The Court's interpretation of the collective nature of the facts, intentions, and procedures The collective nature not only of the facts, but also of the homicidal intentions of each co-author is of great importance in this decision. The Court first returns to the qualification of the accomplice and/or instigator of the moral author of the facts does not the importance of his intention and instructions predominate. [...]
