A possible error in the application of the law would make the conviction of the main defendant in the “Haurus case” illegal. An appeal has been filed.
There will therefore be a second legal act in the “Haurus affair”, a name inspired by the pseudonym of this brigadier belonging to the General Directorate of Internal Security (DGSI) who sold police files on the Internet, and who ended up by get caught up. Indeed, the Nanterre public prosecutor’s office announced on Tuesday July 27 its decision to appeal the judgment rendered at first instance on July 22.
A legal blunder involved
This appeal aims to overtake the verdict of the Nanterre Criminal Court, which has since been accused of having made a gross error of law. ” [L’importance] of the sentence pronounced seems to pose a difficulty of compliance with the law “, Admits the prosecution in a press release sent to AFP, mentioning the provisions of the code of criminal procedure which govern the stay.
During his conviction at first instance, the former police officer was sentenced by the three magistrates to a seven-year prison term, two of which were suspended. A duration very close to the requisitions of the prosecution, which had called for seven years in prison. However, the suspension, in this case, is applicable to individuals when the prison sentences do not exceed five years.
The sentence was accompanied by a warrant of committal, that is to say that Haurus left the courtroom in handcuffs, and deprived of any arrangement of sentence. The former police officer was also banned from practicing in the public service. The charges are serious: we are talking about the sale of confidential files on an illicit Blackhand marketplace, access to which is via dedicated software.
The prospect of a new trial in no way guarantees Haurus a more favorable outcome than the judgment rendered at first instance. It should be noted that to get around the problem of the suspension of prison sentences of a certain duration, the courts could request a sentence of seven years in prison, instead of five – which would in fact increase the sentence to be executed.