Court of Cassation Ruling on Good Faith Evidence: Soundproof Cells and the Right to Remain Silent.
Download
Read an extract
Themes
Court of Cassation, good faith, evidence collection, loyalty, prosecuting authorities, criminal procedure, fundamental freedoms, private life, soundproofed cells, involuntary confessions
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 5
Abstract
Discover the landmark Court of Cassation ruling on the principle of good faith in evidence collection. This significant decision establishes crucial boundaries for prosecuting authorities, balancing the need for evidence with the protection of fundamental freedoms. The case revolves around the use of soundproofed cells to gather involuntary confessions, raising questions about the loyalty of evidence and the right to a fair trial. Learn how this judgment impacts the admissibility of evidence obtained through stratagems and the role of prosecuting authorities in respecting suspects' rights. Understand the implications for criminal procedure and the delicate balance between uncovering guilt and safeguarding individual liberties.
Extract
[...] Thus, in this case, for the evidence to be valid, it would have had to be made by a person other than the prosecuting authority. However, police officers must ensure that cells respect many norms, such as the absence of a sound recording system. But since people other than the prosecuting authorities have almost complete freedom of evidence, the recording could still have been accepted. [...]
[...] The Court of Cassation has already accepted recordings made without the knowledge of the suspected persons, so it could again accept them. The difference between the studied judgment and that of 1984 is that in this case, the recording was made by the public authority. However, although it also benefits from the principle of freedom of evidence, the prosecuting authority has many rules to respect during its search, including the loyalty of the evidence. B. A freedom limited by an obligation of loyalty of the evidence for the prosecuting authorities In the decision studied, the High Court of Justice recalls on several occasions that an agent of the public authority is subject to the principle of loyalty of evidence. [...]
[...] The appeal court's decision is therefore quashed and annulled, and the parties are sent back to the Paris Court of Appeal, otherwise composed. Thus, it will be necessary to study that the good faith of evidence is a principle inherent to criminal procedure and then that the Court of Cassation is here establishing a boundary between good faith and bad faith evidence (II.). I. The good faith of the evidence: a principle inherent to criminal procedure The High Jurisdiction recalls in the present decision that there is a freedom of evidence limited by an obligation of good faith for the authorities (B.). [...]
[...] Court of Cassation, Plenary Assembly March 2015, n° 14-84.339 - Placing people in two adjacent and soundproofed cells to encourage them to reveal their guilt is it contrary to the principle of good faith? The judgment delivered on 6 March 2015 by the Plenary Assembly of the Court of Cassation is about the good faith of the evidence, a principle applying to the prosecuting authorities in criminal proceedings. In this case, the investigating judge opened an investigation following the commission of an armed robbery. [...]
[...] Of course, in the 2015 decision, it is possible to think that the evidence is loyal, because the stratagem would be provided for by Article 706-96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Indeed, it authorizes the recording of words in private or public places, without the consent of the person concerned. It would therefore be technically possible to soundproof the cells. The problem retained by the High Court of Justice is that the recording was made during police custody, during the rest period. As a result, the evidence is considered disloyal. [...]
