A-Infos (en) France, OCL CA #336 - Case of December 8: an unfair but not surprising judgment (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

This report follows the article on the opening of the trial (CA No. 334) 
and that on the progress (CA No. 335)(1). From the first article, I 
noted that the president of the court took up the position of the 
prosecution and the DGSI investigation (2) "without any distancing". I 
concluded the second by noting that throughout the trial she had 
continued to follow the positions of the PNAT (3). The judgment was 
confirmation of this. ---- On December 22, from 8:30 a.m., small groups 
of parents, friends and supporters from different regions gather on the 
square in front of the Paris court to attend at 10 a.m. the judgment 
against those accused of the affair of December 8, 2020. Despite the 
wind and the drizzle, the group increases; the atmosphere is warm 
although worried about the fate reserved for them. Time to pass the 
three successive checks and searches, we gradually enter one of the 
largest courtrooms. There are 250 of us crowded on the benches, and 
there are still around fifty people left in the halls and on the square.

Three-quarters of an hour late, the court finally settles in all its 
shabby splendor and the president begins to announce her decisions. She 
first responds to the various requests from the lawyers whose response 
she had rejected. On the request for communication of the video 
recordings of the police custody: she claims that she would possibly 
have authorized them if the lawyers had contested the hearing minutes, 
but as they had not made a formal challenge, it was useless. How could 
the lawyers have challenged them without being able to observe 
questionable elements thanks to this viewing? The lawyers had requested 
a hearing from the (anonymized) DGSI investigators. The judge considered 
that the result of their investigation was sufficient and that there was 
therefore no need to bring them to trial. Same story for a request 
related to the documents used in the expertise on explosives.
Already this introduction smelled very bad. Then the president stated 
all the reasons why they (4) had retained the qualification of 
Association of Terrorist Criminals (5): it is not necessary that there 
be a structured association, nor that all the members know each other , 
nor that there are precise short-term objectives. You just have to take 
into account the fact that they met, that certain recordings indicate 
that they don't like the police at all, that they trained militaryly (a 
game of airsoft!), that they have made explosives (large firecracker) or 
have possessed products allowing them to be made, some have weapons 
(mostly legal)...

As this enumeration progresses, we see clearly where she is coming from 
and protests emanate from the ranks of the public. After two or three 
interruptions in her reading, the president asks to evacuate the room. 
She leaves as well as the two assessors, the clerk and the public 
prosecutor. The police officers who were present from the start of the 
session on the sides of the room position themselves between the area 
intended for the defendants and their lawyers and that reserved for the 
magistrates. After a short waiting time, other cops will complete the 
encirclement system.
Without worrying too much about their presence and their requests to go 
out, we then begin a sort of improvised AGM where different practical 
positions are proposed which all mark a disruptive attitude towards 
justice: all go out to show that as they do not want hear nothing, we 
don't want to listen to them either, all of you stay to impose a 
physical evacuation by the cops and denounce it. Ultimately the vast 
majority of the public preferred to go out singing "Down with the police 
state (6)". After a period of refusal by the president to discuss with 
the lawyers, an agreement was reached so that the judgment would be 
pronounced in front of the accused and their lawyers, three members of 
each family, the few representatives of the press .

As expected after this introduction, the convictions follow requests 
from the PNAT. They range from 2 years with a simple suspended sentence 
without registration with FIJAIT (7) for the least charged of the 
accused, up to 5 years including 30 months with a suspended sentence for 
Florian "Libre Flot". They even aggravate the requests of the 
prosecution on certain points: the execution of the remaining sentences 
of less than one year will necessarily be carried out using an 
electronic bracelet; the convicted are prohibited from communicating 
with each other for 3 years. The length of sentences is slightly reduced 
for the main accused, but increased for Camille who has shown herself to 
be the most politically determined to challenge justice.

Obviously, everyone was dismayed by this result, but remained determined 
to continue the legal fight. It is still too early to have confirmation 
of the attitude of the convicted persons and their lawyers, but they 
declared before the hearing that if there was a conviction in the name 
of the AMT and therefore registration with the FIJAIT, the appeal would 
be certain. In addition, a lawyer told us that the fact that the judges 
were more severe than the prosecution is quite rare and that in these 
cases, it is very unlikely that on appeal the sentences will be 
increased again. Then, if the appeal does not suspend the judicial 
control measures linked to the suspended parts of the convictions, it is 
suspensive of the sentences (and therefore of the placement under 
bracelet). Finally, this lawyer estimated that the waiting time for a 
call in Paris is currently 1 and a half to 2 years.
By 2025 they will still need our solidarity, in particular financial 
support (8) for their defense.

AD, Limoges 12/23/2023

Notes
1: There were a few small flaws in the presentation of the notes in the 
first article, but in the second, they all disappeared. We will try to 
reestablish some points here.
2: General Directorate of Internal Security
3: National anti-terrorist prosecution
4: the three judges are women.
5: For a critique of the AMT, refer to an excellent article published in 
the journal Délibabilité and available here: 
https://www.cairn.info/revue-delibe...
6: Modernized version of the song by Dominique Grange
7: Judicial file for perpetrators of terrorist offenses which includes 
numerous constraints (home, work, travel) and can possibly be extended 
beyond the initial 10 years.
8: https://www.cotizup.com/soutien-8-12

http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4046
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en