The institution responded to a journalist who had been monitored on the sidelines of an investigation into the Rédoine Faïd robber.
by
Is the legal arsenal protecting the secret of journalists’ sources sufficient? It was the whole interest of the priority question of constitutionality that the Constitutional Council had to decide. In his decision rendered on Friday October 28, the institution chaired by Laurent Fabius responded positively.
To fully understand the nature of the legal debate, we must return to the facts. They took place four years ago, at the time of the spectacular escape of Rédoine Faïd. In July 2018, this robber imprisoned at the Penitentiary Center in Réau (Seine-et-Marne) escaped thanks to an exfiltration aboard a helicopter. Working at the time for BFM-TV, journalist Marie Peyraube embarks on a documentary on M. Faïd.
To tell the career of the criminal born in a city of Creil (Oise), near Paris, she meets around thirty people, childhood friends, relatives, lawyers, police … bad surprise: at the time of arrest From criminal, she discovers in an article published by Le Parisien , that she would have been monitored by the police. The latter, said the newspaper, would have decided, “with the agreement of the judges”, to “follow remotely reporting it in the hope of getting their hands” on Rédoine Faïd, because it was “likely to obtain an interview with Fugitive “. A “extremely rare measure”, said everyday life.
fundamental rights
M me Peyraube believes that this surveillance of which she did not know “neither the scope nor the exact nature”, as her lawyer François Molinié recalled during the hearing before the Constitutional Council, has informed her fundamental rights: as she is neither a party to the procedure nor assisted witness, she did not have access to the file. Consequently, M e
é> Molinié argued that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure not providing for remedies to have the surveillance acts canceled, of which M me Peyraube was the object are contrary in particular “to the right of access to the judge, to the right to freedom of expression and to the right to privacy” and to the secrecy of sources.
Finally, he added that the recourse in compensation before civil justice does not allow the deletion of acts of disputed procedures. M me Peyraube and M e Molinié therefore wanted to “recognize the right for a third -party journalist for the procedure which alleges having been the subject of investigative measures undermining its interests to request partial access to the file and, if necessary, to obtain its cancellation “.
You have 22.49% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.