(RSF/IFEX) – RSF has criticised a Paris criminal court for convicting journalist Gilles Millet on 23 October 2003 for possessing confidential material from a legal investigation. The court imposed a fine of 1,000 euros (approx. US$1,175). The sentence was suspended. The journalist was also cleared of possessing information protected by professional secrecy. “How can the […]
(RSF/IFEX) – RSF has criticised a Paris criminal court for convicting journalist Gilles Millet on 23 October 2003 for possessing confidential material from a legal investigation. The court imposed a fine of 1,000 euros (approx. US$1,175). The sentence was suspended. The journalist was also cleared of possessing information protected by professional secrecy.
“How can the judges in charge of this case claim the right to information has not been violated?” RSF Secretary-General Robert Ménard asked. “Convictions for possessing investigative or professional secrets obstruct the work of the press,” Ménard added. “They threaten the confidentiality of journalistic sources by banning the possession or publication of certain documents, even though journalists are not bound by professional or judicial secrecy.”
The organisation also noted that journalists’ homes enjoy no protection in the case of searches, unlike the premises of news organisations, which can only be searched in a judge’s presence (Article 56-2 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
The case began when Millet’s home was searched on 30 June 1998 by the National Antiterrorist Directorate (Direction nationale antiterroriste) as part of an investigation headed by Jean-Louis Bruguière into “criminal association in connection with a terrorist enterprise”. The search took place four months after the murder of Corsican prefect Claude Erignac. Millet, who now works for the monthly “Corsica”, was then a Corsica specialist with the weekly “L’Evènement du Jeudi”.
The police confiscated two of Millet’s notebooks and found two documents: the copy of a report protected by investigative secrecy since it was written as part of an investigation into the pork industry in Corsica and, second, a report by the Financial Inspectorate considered to be a professional secret. Following the search, Millet was placed in police custody for 48 hours before being charged. RSF denounced this measure at the time as a violation of press freedom and the confidentiality of journalistic sources.
On 23 October 2003, Millet was convicted for possessing the judicial report. The judges concluded that he must have known this report was an investigative secret. They claimed there was no violation of the right to information as the prosecution was justified by the obligation to “protect the reputation or rights of a third party and guarantee the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has already criticised France for similar verdicts; however, French courts are not obliged to comply with ECHR rulings. The fact that the ECHR has clearly spoken out against French judicial practices has not been enough to make the French courts follow its recommendations.
On 21 January 1999, the ECHR ruled that France had violated Article 10 of the European Convention by convicting the weekly “Le Canard Enchaîné” of possessing documents protected by professional confidentiality. The court said that publishing a confidential document was justified in this case by the public’s right to be informed about matters of general interest (see IFEX alert of 20 June 2002).
The Court of Cassation never accepted this ECHR ruling and, in June 2001, it upheld the conviction of the authors and publishers of “Les Oreilles du Président,” a book about phone-tapping by the presidential palace. They were convicted of possessing professional or investigative secrets because they had used reports of phone-tapping that were part of an investigating judge’s dossier. The defence invoked Article 10, but the Court of Cassation ruled that freedom of expression was not paramount in this case. The court said the conviction was justified because this freedom was limited by the need to protect the rights of a third party and guarantee the judiciary’s authority and impartiality (see alert of 22 June 2001).
Convictions for possessing confidential documents began in the 1990s in connection with political and financial scandals. Despite the ECHR’s rulings, they have continued. These convictions also undermined the right of journalists accused of defamation to present evidence to support what they had said or written. This was the case until June 2002, when the Court of Cassation accepted that a journalist does have the right to possess documents protected by investigative secrecy if they are necessary for his defence.
