A legal imbroglio could lead to a major rebound in the Haurus affair, the trial of a DGSI sergeant who sold police files on the “darknet”. The seven-year prison sentence, two of which was suspended against the main defendant, seems quite simply … illegal.
” It’s mind-boggling! Frankly, shame on the court. ” On Twitter, jurists comment harshly on the latest turnaround that looms in the trial of Haurus. This incredible case implicates a brigadier of the DGSI, prosecuted for having sold for more than a year information from police files on black markets. This judicial file, emblematic of the shenanigans of the “darknet” seemed finished, except for an appeal by one of the parties, with the deliberation rendered this Thursday, July 22. But it was without counting on an unexpected twist, extremely rare in French law.
During the deliberation, delivered one month after the three days of hearing in mid-June, the correctional court of Nanterre had a heavy hand: the defense of Christophe B., alias Haurus on the illegal marketplace Blackhand, did not convinced. The three magistrates sentenced him to a seven-year prison term, including two years suspended. A period quite close to the requisitions of the prosecution, which had requested seven years of imprisonment. The policeman was also banned from working in the public service and was placed under a committal order, that is to say arrested. His companion and four former clients also received sentences ranging from a suspended sentence for a private detective to imprisonment for a figure of organized crime in Marseille.
During the trial, which Numerama had attended, Haurus returned to the fatal gear – over-indebtedness and greed – that had led him to engage with crooks for ” put some butter on the spinach. “About his 382 illegitimate searches – on identities, addresses or geolocations – carried out in secret in sensitive files, the former police officer recounted his questions at the time:” Will a search on a vehicle registration file have an impact, will it be seen in the mass? [des recherches] ? “
A rare error, but not unprecedented
Upon reading his sentence pronouncement, Haurus realizes that he must return to detention. This 35-year-old man tenderly embraces his companion before putting himself in handcuffs. A moment of sensitivity passed into the background for many jurists. Because they choke in their coffee on a specific point of the sentence. Seven years in prison, including two years suspended? For them, it does not stick. ” It seems to me [être] an unlawful sentence », Immediately remark a magistrate very active on social networks.
According to the detailed explanations of the French administration, the simple suspension or the probationary suspension cannot in fact be applied to prison sentences exceeding five years, a period extended to ten years if the defendant is in a situation of recidivism, this which was not the case with Haurus. ” These provisions have been in the Penal Code since 1994 ”, Enraged one of the parties to the trial. ” A law student who puts this in a copy, he picks up », Summarizes Me Frédéric Berna, former president of the lawyers of Nancy. ” Either it’s a huge blunder, or there is an unknown exception, and in this case I want the explanation He adds.
Even if the law can reserve surprises, it is for the moment the first option, that of an erroneous decision of the magistrates, which holds the cord. The prosecution of the Nanterre judicial court, which has followed the case since its inception, has indeed confirmed this analysis to Numerama. For the prosecution, part of the sentence pronounced Thursday against Haurus seems tainted with illegality. The prosecution, which is likely to appeal, also said it was examining the situation. ” This is one of the extremely difficult cases to make a litigant understand.e ”, sighs Me Éric Morain, civil party at the trial. If the ” blunder ”Is proven, it would be rare, but not unprecedented, as evidenced by a judgment of the Court of Cassation dated 2013. The high court then looked into the execution of an illegally pronounced sentence that had become final.
One question remains: can this error, if confirmed, work in Haurus’ favor? Not necessarily. In the event of an appeal, Christophe B. could very well, following a new trial, be sentenced to an even heavier sentence, for example seven years without suspension. When contacted, his lawyer, Me Bouzrou, declined to comment.
