Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Drawing upon my own empirical research, this article examines the regulation of the detention and interrogation of suspects held in police custody in France - the ways in which the rights and interests of the suspect are protected and the reliability of evidence guaranteed. After considering the legal framework and the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights, the article describes the actual practices and roles of key legal personnel and the relationships between them; the nature of judicial supervision; the role of the defence; and the conduct of police interrogations. The article concludes that neither judicial supervision by the public prosecutor as actually exercised nor the recently expanded rights of the defence provide sufficient guarantees to safeguard either the interests of the suspect or the reliability of evidence. Although the outcome of the investigation is reviewed, the process is not. Despite the centrality of confession evidence in practice and the obvious vulnerability of those detained, the police detention of suspects continues to be regarded in procedural terms as a preliminary (and, therefore, less important) investigation, with the result that the suspect is afforded fewer safeguards when interrogated by the police than when questioned by a judge.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Becker, H. S. and Greer, B. (1957). Participant observation and interviewing . Human Organisation 16, 28-32 .

Belloni, F. and Hodgson, J. (2000). Criminal injustice: An evaluation of the criminal justice process in Britain. London: Macmillan .

Bredin, J. D. (1958). Remarques sur le Code de Procédure Pénale. Gazette du Palais (Doctrine) 25.

Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Routledge .

Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press .

CNCDH [Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l’Homme] (2002). Avis sur la proposition de loi complétant la loi du 15 juin 2000 renforçant la protection de la présomption d’innocence et les droits des victimes - 24/01/02.

Cretney, A. and Davis, G. (1995). Punishing violence. London: Routledge .

Delmas-Marty, M. (1991). La Mise en état des affaires pénales: Rapport de la Commission Justice pénale et Droits de l’homme. Paris: La Documentation Française.

Dixon, D., Bottomley, K., Coleman, C., Gill, M. and Wall, D. (1990). Safeguarding the rights of suspects in police custody . Policing and Society 1, 115 .

10.

Emmerson, B. and Ashworth, A. (2001). Human rights and criminal justice. London: Sweet & Maxwell .

11.

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (2001). Rapport au Gouvernement de la République française relatif à la visite en France effectuée par le Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants (CPT) du 14 au 26 mai 2000.

12.

Gendrel, M. (1992). Garde à vue et droit de l’individu. La défense doit-elle commencer dans les locaux de gendarmerie ou de police? Droit pénal, March, 1-3.

13.

Halphen, E. (2002). Sept ans de solitude. Paris: éditions Denoël.

14.

Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles and practice. London: Routledge .

15.

Heaton-Armstrong, A. and Wolchover, D. (1992). Recording witness statements . Criminal Law Review 160.

16.

Hodgson, J. (2000). Comparing legal cultures: The comparativist as participant observer. In D. Nelken (ed.) Contrasting criminal justice, 139-156. Aldershot: Ashgate .

17.

Hodgson, J. (2001a). The police, the prosecutor and the juge d’instruction: Judicial supervision in France, theory and practice . British Journal of Criminology 41, 342-361 .

18.

Hodgson, J. (2001b). Reforming French criminal justice . Legal Action, November, 6-8.

19.

Hodgson, J. (2002a). Constructing the pre-trial role of the defence in French criminal procedure: An adversarial outsider in an inquisitorial process? International Journal of Evidence and Proof 6, 1-16 .

20.

Hodgson, J. (2002b). Hierarchy, bureaucracy and ideology in French criminal justice: Some empirical observations . Journal of Law and Society 29, 2: 227-257 .

21.

Hodgson, J. (2002c). Suspects, defendants and victims in the French criminal process: The context of recent reform . International and Comparative Law Quarterly 51, 781-816 .

22.

Hodgson, J. (forthcoming 2004). Human rights and French criminal justice: Opening the door to pre-trial defence rights. In S. Halliday and P. Schmidt (eds) Bringing rights home. Oxford: Hart Publishing .

23.

Horton, C. (1995). Policing policy in France. London: Policy Studies Institute .

24.

Karpik, L. (1999). French lawyers: A study in collective action 1274 to 1994. Oxford: Clarendon Press .

25.

Leigh, L. and Zedner, L. (1992). A report on the administration of criminal justice in France and Germany. London: HMSO .

26.

Lévy, R. (1993). Police and the judiciary in France since the nineteenth century . British Journal of criminology 33, 167-186 .

27.

McCall, G. J. and Simmons, J. L., eds (1969). Issues in participant observation: A text and reader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley .

28.

McConville, M. and Hodgson, J. (1993). Custodial legal advice and the right to silence. London: HMSO .

29.

McConville, M., Sanders, A. and Leng, R. (1991). The case for the prosecution. London: Routledge .

30.

McConville, M., Hodgson, J., Bridges, L. and Pavlovic, A. (1994). Standing accused: The organisation and practices of criminal defence lawyers in Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press .

31.

McLean, M. (1995). Quality investigation? Police interviewing of witnesses . Medicine, Science and Law 35: 116 .

32.

Merle, R. (1969). La Garde à vue . Gazette du Palais. 18 July.

33.

Moston, S. and Stephenson, G. M. (1993). The questioning and interviewing of suspects outside the police station. London: HMSO .

34.

Phillips, C. and Brown, D. (1998). Entry into the criminal justice system: A survey of police arrests and their outcomes. London: Home Office .

35.

Rancé, P. (2002). L’Interrogatoire en question . Dalloz 22: 1764-1765 .

36.

RCCJ [Royal Commission on Criminal Justice] (1993). Report. Cmnd 2263. London: HMSO .

37.

Sanders, A. and Bridges, L. (1990). Access to legal advice and police malpractice . Criminal Law Review 494.

38.

Sanders, A. and Young, R. (2000). Criminal justice. London: Butterworths .

39.

Sanders, A., Bridges, L., Mulvaney, A. and Crozier, G. (1989). Advice and assistance at police stations and the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme. London: Lord Chancellor’s Department .

40.

Sauron, J.-L. (1990). Les Vertus de l’inquisitoire ou l’Etat au services des droits . Pouvoirs 55, 53-64 .

41.

Silverman, D. (1985). Qualitative methodology and sociology. Aldershot: Gower .

42.

Truche, P. (1997). Rapport de la commission de réflexion sur la Justice. Paris: La Documentation Française .

43.

Waquet, P. (1991). Réflexions sur les rapports de la Commission Justice pénale et Droits de l’homme. Revue de science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé 3, 518-525.

The Detention and Interrogation of Suspects in Police Custody in France

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References