Pierre Palmade trial

[MAD87]

Last year, this French actor/playwright/comedian drugged himself up (again) and took the wheel. In the inevitable collision, he injured a man and his 6 year old son, and caused another passenger, 6 months' pregnant, to lose her baby.

It's been decided that he'll be tried in October for "unintentinal injuries" rather than manslaughter. That I can understand: manslaughter requires a living or viable being. It's the "unintentional" I can't accept. Did he take the drugs unintentionally?

Back in the dark ages of English justice, getting drunk or drugged then committing a crime was mitigation, but that changed for all the right reasons. Seems that the French are decades behind. He'll also get Brownie points, I'm sure, for being famous. Grrrr.

[niemeyjt]

I guess he did not intend to kill the unborn baby. Would a sober driver be facing a similar charge?

Sometimes the law is an ass - like the UK case of a cyclist who killed a woman getting off with some charges from the Victorian era rather than manslaughter.

And what also bugs me is defence lawyers arguing that being under the influence of drink or drugs is somehow a mitigating factor.

[Blaze]

Palmade chose to take drugs, and choosing to drive was reckless, and thus he caused the injuries and the loss of the unborn baby.

But there's a reluctance/inability voir refusal in the French psyche to take responsibility for their own actions. It's always better to try and blame someone or something else.

Sadly it's a lawyer's game and winning is all that matters, regardless of whether justice is considered served.
People don't drink/drug themselves with the intention of killing or injuring someone so trying someone for unintentional injuries is ridiculous.

[exile]

Sorry to be somewhat contrarian - and I have to admit to knowing little of French legal niceties - but there have been occasions where individuals have become intoxicated (drugs and/or drink) and have gone out to commit deliberate harm. Unintentional does seem to me to be the right word even if becoming intoxicated and driving was a deliberate and reckless act.

[MAD87]

Lawyers are there to represent their clients and put their case in the best possible light, so I don't blame them per se. I do blame French law and judges who, for multiple reasons, don't think. Improsonment now is via electronic bracelt, thanks to Taubira and Holland cancelling Sarkozy's prison building plans.
The drunken idiot (recidivist with no licence) who nearly ended the lives of my younger son and his passenger last year got 8 months "imprisonment" at home. Justr as Palmade is at home on bail awaiting trial, having "treatment". I'll eat my hat if he serves time.
@exile I can't agree with you: taking drugs was an intentional act (with foreseeable consequences), so was driving in that condition. He's rich enough to hail a cab if necessary. It wasn't his first time either!

[exile]

The law in the UK has to try to be very precise and I assume the French law is similar. Unintentional is an adjective that is attached to a noun - before in English, after in French - and it describes that noun = harm. The harm was unintentional; the actions leading up to that harm would seem to be very intentional but that is not what he is being charged with. Unintentional does not describe any other actions - only harm.

Lawyers on the prosecution side need to ensure that the charge brought against a defendant is one that is likely to be successful because bringing a different, perhaps more severe, charge that risks the defendant escaping justice, benefits no one and especially not injured parties. Charges need to be precise, correct and stand a reasonable chance of victory in court.

I saw part of a course given to UK magistrates. The hypothetical case was of a pedestrian who steps onto a zebra crossing in order to cross the road. Some distance away is a car approaching the crossing. The driver seems to take no action regarding the pedestrian in front of him and continues forward. The pedestrian speeds up. The car continues without slowing. The pedestrian breaks into a run reaches the other side and the car passes behind within millimetres of him. The trainee magistrates were asked how they would react to a charge of failing to give way to a pedestrian on a zebra crossing. They all said guilty with most wanting to apply maximum sanctions.

They were all wrong.

Why?
Because the car passed behind the pedestrian, the pedestrian had in fact had his right of way - irrespective of the danger he had been put in.
Wrong charge brought against the driver.

With that level of precision in mind and considering the risks of a different charge perhaps failing with a clever and expensive lawyer that Palmade could easily afford, perhaps you should rethink your objection.

As a further point and one I have no idea about, what are the different sanctions (max and min) for this charge versus alternative ones that might be brought?

[tagh]

Imagine if the defendant in the case was of North African origin, poor and lived in a banlieu of Paris or Marseilles. What treatment would he have had,mwhat would the charges, verdict and sentence be?

[MAD87]

With that level of precision in mind and considering the risks of a different charge perhaps failing with a clever and expensive lawyer that Palmade could easily afford, perhaps you should rethink your objection.

As a further point and one I have no idea about, what are the different sanctions (max and min) for this charge versus alternative ones that might be brought?

The court decided not to charge Palmade with manslaughter (clearly a more serious offence) rightly in my opinion. It wouldn't have got home, especially on appeal. But why add the adjective to the noun? There's plenty to argue about (agin in my opinion) on the use of involontaire applied to blessures. He's presumably not without a brain and would know the likely consequences of driving in such a state. Hence, he sallied forth volontairement, not giving a flying fig. If I were prosecuting - and they haven't invited me to, funnly enuff - that's the line I'd take.
@tagh Good question.

[exile]

Answering my own question above about sanctions, it seems that there is no difference between blessures volontaires and involuntaires. 3 years and a 45000€ fine.

https://www.service-public.fr/particuli ... oits/F1524


So in fact the objections to my interpretation would seem to be emotional rather than logical.

As I said above prosecute the cases you can win and while I am no legal expert, I think blessures voluntaire would require the prosecution to prove some intent in causing those injuries and while we can rightly argue that his actions were likely to result in some form of accident, that does not prove intent to cause the injuries.

I think this is broadly similar to the case of Valdo Calocane who stabbed 3 people to death and tried to kill 3 more in a stolen van. He was tried on Manslaughter charges due to diminished responsibility rather than murder. Burden of proof being lower and the end sentence being effectively the same.

[MAD87]

I agree that intent is unlikely in Palmade's case as it was blunted/negated by drugs. Recklessness would be the least charge I could think of were we in England, but French law is less flexible. We will see. The parquet may get their way and have different charges brought, but legal opinions seem firmly against a manslaughter charge.