The decision is rare. On June 28, the Versailles Court of Appeal returned to the dismissal of the complaint for rape by the writer Florence Porcel, at the origin of the revelation of the patrick case Arvor pepper More than a year ago. In this file, thejudicial information now bears “on all the facts”even those prescribed. A decision which owes a lot to the legal notion of seriality, and which could ultimately worry the ex-presenter, also targeted by a new complaint and the release of a book by journalist Hélène Devynck.
To understand what it is, we must first go back to the facts: Florence porcelain accuses “PPDA” of having forced him to have sex in 2004 and fellatio in 2009. Patrick Poivre d’Arvor, he, denies all charges. The Nanterre prosecutor’s office opened an investigation for “rape” in February 2021.
In France, the statute of limitations for rape, i.e. the period beyond which it is no longer possible to prosecute its alleged perpetrator, increased in 2017 from 10 to 20 years, but this measure is not retroactive. LThe facts dating back to 2004 were therefore automatically dismissed by the investigating judges, who focused on the facts dating back to 2009, beforeorder a dismissal for “insufficient evidence”. Florence Porcel then filed a complaint again, by constituting this time a civil party.
However, on June 28, the Versailles Court of Appeal reversed this decision. The judgment of the investigating chamber orders that the judicial information now bears “on all the facts” of which Florence Porcel claims to be a victim, including those (prescribed) of 2004. Concretely, the investigating judges must re-examine these facts to check if there are other similar testimonies, this time not prescribed, in search of a possible seriality.
To establish the serial character, it is necessary to find a link between acts of the same author on similar offences. “This decision is not necessarily linked solely to the situation of Florence Porcel. We can imagine that it is a question of looking for other possible victims”, most recent ones, analysis Audrey Darsonville, law professor at Paris Nanterre University, interviewed by franceinfo.
To make such a decision, the Court of Appeal invoked case law from the Court of Cassation dating from 2005, explains France Inter. However, this decision does not amount to a questioning of the limitation period. “The Court of Appeal did not rule in favor of the non-prescription of the facts, but it said that the investigating judges must examine the facts before setting them aside for prescription”, insists a judicial source close to the file with franceinfo.
“This decision is a request to re-investigate the facts, which does not always mean that we will prosecute them.”
Audrey Darsonville, professor of law at Paris Nanterre Universityat franceinfo
This decision is nevertheless of interest from a legal point of view, underlines Elodie Tuaillon-Hibon, haslawyer specializing in sexual violence, contacted by franceinfo. “We know that sexual violence has a real impact on the psyche of the victim by weakening it. In the case of Florence Porcel, if there had not been the alleged facts of 2004, one can wonder if there would have been the facts of 2009. This decision therefore a material justification”comments the lawyer.
“It is very innovative, and it is also in favor of the alleged victims since it is assumed that they are not lying”, also points out Audrey Darsonville. A similar situation occurred in the Richard Berry case. Lhe stepdaughter of the actor, Coline Berry, filed a complaint for prescribed facts, but the justice decided not to close the case immediately.
“The interest is to find out if there is another similar victim, but also to listen to the complainant, even if the facts are old.”
Audrey Darsonville, professor of law at Paris Nanterre Universityat franceinfo
In recent years, the rules of prescription have been modified many times in French law. In the context of cases of sexual violence against minors, the extension of the limitation periods is thus possible since the law of April 21, 2021, which mentions the notion of “sliding prescription”: when a new act is committed by the same author, prescription does not begin until the date of the most recent act. This rule does not apply to adults.