This is a decision that will interest far beyond the Archdiocese of Lyon and the Philippe Barbarin affair, which is at the origin of it. Seized of an appeal against the judgment of the court of appeal of Lyon, which released the former cardinal of Lyon, the Court of Cassation delivered, Wednesday April 14, a judgment which frames the obligation of denunciation of ” sexual assault or assault on minors of 15 years.
On the initiative of the association La Parole Libérée, Cardinal Philippe Barbarin had been prosecuted for not having denounced to the public prosecutor the sexual assaults of which he had received the confidence from a victim of the former scout chaplain, Bernard Preynat. Sentenced at first instance by the Lyon court, Philippe Barbarin appealed and was released.
At the heart of the debates was the interpretation of article 434-3 of the penal code which defines the offense of non-denunciation by “The fact, for anyone having knowledge of deprivation, ill-treatment or assault or sexual abuse inflicted on a minor or on a person who is unable to protect himself by reason of his age or an illness, of an infirmity, a physical or mental deficiency or a state of pregnancy, not to inform the judicial or administrative authorities or to continue not to inform these authorities as long as these offenses have not ceased ”.
“Complex” prescription rules
The Court of Cassation was seized of two questions on which the court of Lyon then the court of appeal had given different answers: is a person required to denounce facts of sexual assault brought to his attention, even if these facts would be prescribed? Does the obligation to report continue if the victims, who have reached the age of majority or no longer present a “vulnerability” within the meaning of the penal code, are in a position to report the facts themselves?
The Court of Cassation answered yes to the first question and no to the second. On the prescription of the denounced offenses, it takes the opposite view of the Lyon Court of Appeal which, in its judgment rendered on January 30, 2020, considered that “The obligation sanctioned by the text can not be considered as legally maintained when the main offense can no longer be prosecuted”.
The appellate judges relied on the fact that, when the offenses are prescribed, there is no longer any obstruction of justice likely to be blamed on the person who did not denounce. The Court of Cassation considers, on the contrary, that the obligation of denunciation “Persists even if the ill-treatment appears to be prescribed when the person who has the obligation to report it becomes aware of it”. In support of its decision, it notes that the limitation rules being “Complex”, these “Cannot be left to the discretion of the person who receives the information and who can, in particular, be unaware of the existence of an act which would be likely to interrupt this prescription”.
You have 47.41% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.