why an investigation for rape is opened when the facts risk being prescribed

The actress filed a complaint against Benoît Jacquot and Jacques Doillon, and the Paris prosecutor’s office opened a preliminary investigation following the facts denounced, although they took place “between 1986 and 1992”.

Can the sexual violence denounced by Judith Godrèche still give rise to legal action? The question arises as the actress filed a complaint for rape of a minor on Tuesday against directors Benoît Jacquot and Jacques Doillon. In response, the Paris public prosecutor’s office opened an investigation on Wednesday February 7, which includes “on the offenses of rape of a minor under 15 years of age by a person in authority”. “All the facts denounced” have “took place between 1986 and 1992“, specified the prosecution.

However, in the 1980s, for a minor victim of rape by a person in authority, the limitation period was ten years from their majority. The law of July 10, 1989 then extended this period to twenty years after reaching the age of majority. Today, the statute of limitations is 30 years, or up to the age of 48. But it does not apply to offenses prescribed before August 6, 2018. This is the principle of non-retroactivity: facts cannot be judged with regard to a law adopted subsequently.

“Provoke an awakening of memory in other victims”

If the facts seem a priori prescribed, why then is an investigation opened? “In many jurisdictions, and in particular at the Paris public prosecutor’s office, this is a recent way of operating. This is not specific to the Judith Godrèche affair: it is a new criminal policy”, notes Audrey Darsonville, professor of law at Paris Nanterre University. In fact, this is a request from the Minister of Justice, Eric Dupond-Moretti, addressed to prosecutors, which dates from February 26, 2021, in the wake of the publication of Camille Kouchner’s book, The Great Family, who accused Olivier Duhamel of incest on his brother. “You will endeavor to systematically open an investigation even if the facts appear a priori prescribed”asked the Minister of Justice, in a circular of March 28, 2023 on the fight against violence against minors.

The first objective is “to discover the existence of other victims for whom the facts are not prescribed”. “It’s an interesting legal approach, which serves a more collective interest”underlines Audrey Darsonville. “The opening of an investigation into this type of particularly traumatic event can trigger a reawakening of memories in other victims, who are experiencing a sort of amnesia.”, adds Isabelle Rome, former minister responsible for Equality between women and men, today first president of the chamber at the Versailles Court of Appeal. In view of her experience in the assize courts, the magistrate, who has just published The End of Impunityclaims that this allows “to loosen tongues”while a “lead screed” very often weighs on victims of sexual violence.

Check the limitation period

Sometimes, other victims have already spoken, but the complaints and testimonies have never been grouped together. A survey allows you to do this. In this context, investigators can also check whether other similar facts, occurring after those denounced in the initial complaint, could have interrupted the prescription. This is the principle of “sliding prescription”, introduced by the law of April 21, 2021 “aimed at protecting minors from sexual crimes and incest”.

According to this law, “the limitation period for this rape is extended, where appropriate, until the limitation date for the new offense”. Clearly, if the person accused subsequently raped or sexually assaulted another minor, the courts will retain the statute of limitations for this more recent offense. With this new possibility, the opening of an investigation may therefore prove “interesting”, judge Isabelle Rome: ultimately, the facts denounced will perhaps not be prescribed. Or, at least, the investigation will allow us to find out.

Because the prescription is not always certain: to be sure, it must be verified. “The calculations to establish the limitation period are complicated. Errors can happen,” points out Audrey Darsonville. Here again, the survey allows you to take the time to do this.

“Support the search for truth”

By opening an investigation, justice simply allows the facts to be established. The people involved can explain themselves and the victim’s words are taken into account: their complaint is at least the subject of analysis, or even verification. “It’s a way of respecting her and hearing her. She has the ear of criminal justice”underlines Audrey Darsonville.

Until what point ? In his essay, entitled Praise of prescription, lawyer Marie Dosé – who notably defends Jacques Doillon – sees this as a distortion of justice, rendered only for the victims, in particular when the prosecutors announce at the end of an investigation that “the facts are likely to constitute a crime, but are prescribed”.

In fact, when the Paris prosecutor’s office closed the investigation into rape and sexual assault by a person having authority over a 15-year-old minor in the Olivier Duhamel case in June 2021, the prosecutor at the time, Rémy Heitz, stated that “the facts revealed or denounced in the procedure constitute an offense which would have given rise to prosecution” “if the time limit set by law had not been exceeded”. “The prescription also protects the victims whom it protects from false hopes., writes Marie Dosé. But for Isabelle Rome, the most important thing is “to support the search for truth, even if the facts are prescribed”, in order, she explains, “to escape from a system of impunity”.