Introduction
Introduction
French courts not only consist of judges in making decisions about submitted cases. In court others magistrates are responsible for the correct application of the law and the respect of the public order: the public prosecutors. In pursuit of their missions these prosecutors present oral submissions to the court.
The origin of the institution of prosecutor dates to the Middle Ages: when the King wanted to defend his own interests in a court of law, he ordered prosecutors, who were common attorneys, to bring his case. From the 16th century these attorneys stopped to assist their private customers to exclusively assist the King. Furthermore, their mission developed: they had to defend the Society’s general interests. This second mission then became the most important which explains why the prosecutors subsequently stopped to assist the King. Common attorneys too solely protect society in front of the courts. This remains the main mission of the public prosecutor today and thus the prosecutor’s role is not to go to law in the name of the State. The public prosecutor also plays a role in the execution of sanctions.
Moreover, it would be a mistake to consider the public prosecutor as the defender of the government because its job is to apply the law on behalf of society and in the name of the good administration of the justice.
Furthermore, even if the mission of the judges is only to make a decision on the cases submitted, the prosecutors have proper responsibilities in discovering the truth. For this purpose the public prosecutor has strong powers over the judiciary police and can instruct an investigating judge who may only investigate in accordance with the submission made by this district prosecutor. This last one also controls the judicial police especially for the research of evidence.
Regarding the individual freedoms of a person, the public prosecutor has substantial powers which have been recognised by the constitutional council for instance in the area of the detention of foreigners (cf. law of November 26, 2003).
Regarding the relations between the public prosecutor and political powers: the independence of the justice system is assured by the constitutional and statutory dispositions, including those of the law of the August 24, 1993. More recently, the government asked the commission Truche to think about the necessity of reforming the judicial system, and especially, the breaking up of the hierarchical relation between the public prosecutor and the Minister of Justice. On March 9, 2004 the French Parliament adopted a new law with the purpose of modifying criminal procedures, including the prerogatives conferred to the public prosecutor, in order to adapt the justice system to the changes in national and international crime. Over the last fourteen years, many controversies have concentrated on the public prosecution services. As an example of good practice, some commentators referred to the Italian model with its very independent prosecutor, who is not accountable to the Minister of Justice in individual cases. Others preferred to keep a hierarchical link with the Minister of Justice, as long as some guarantees are given to him.
French courts not only consist of judges in making decisions about submitted cases. In court others magistrates are responsible for the correct application of the law and the respect of the public order: the public prosecutors. In pursuit of their missions these prosecutors present oral submissions to the court.
The origin of the institution of prosecutor dates to the Middle Ages: when the King wanted to defend his own interests in a court of law, he ordered prosecutors, who were common attorneys, to bring his case. From the 16th century these attorneys stopped to assist their private customers to exclusively assist the King. Furthermore, their mission developed: they had to defend the Society’s general interests. This second mission then became the most important which explains why the prosecutors subsequently stopped to assist the King. Common attorneys too solely protect society in front of the courts. This remains the main mission of the public prosecutor today and thus the prosecutor’s role is not to go to law in the name of the State. The public prosecutor also plays a role in the execution of sanctions.
Moreover, it would be a mistake to consider the public prosecutor as the defender of the government because its job is to apply the law on behalf of society and in the name of the good administration of the justice.
Furthermore, even if the mission of the judges is only to make a decision on the cases submitted, the prosecutors have proper responsibilities in discovering the truth. For this purpose the public prosecutor has strong powers over the judiciary police and can instruct an investigating judge who may only investigate in accordance with the submission made by this district prosecutor. This last one also controls the judicial police especially for the research of evidence.
Regarding the individual freedoms of a person, the public prosecutor has substantial powers which have been recognised by the constitutional council for instance in the area of the detention of foreigners (cf. law of November 26, 2003).
Regarding the relations between the public prosecutor and political powers: the independence of the justice system is assured by the constitutional and statutory dispositions, including those of the law of the August 24, 1993. More recently, the government asked the commission Truche to think about the necessity of reforming the judicial system, and especially, the breaking up of the hierarchical relation between the public prosecutor and the Minister of Justice. On March 9, 2004 the French Parliament adopted a new law with the purpose of modifying criminal procedures, including the prerogatives conferred to the public prosecutor, in order to adapt the justice system to the changes in national and international crime. Over the last fourteen years, many controversies have concentrated on the public prosecution services. As an example of good practice, some commentators referred to the Italian model with its very independent prosecutor, who is not accountable to the Minister of Justice in individual cases. Others preferred to keep a hierarchical link with the Minister of Justice, as long as some guarantees are given to him.
