Thursday, September 16 at the Aix-en-Provence court, a juror of the Assize Court refused to remove her veil when taking the oath, and was excused from her role by the chairman of the session, then replaced, reports
Provence
.
Read alsoDidier Lemaire, a hussar in search of the lost Republic
The Assize Court was to try a minor in a case of aggravated theft and extortion. Drawn by lot, the woman went to court to take the oath, as required by article 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The president must thus pronounce a sentence asking in particular attention and impartiality to the jurors, before calling them individually so that they can answer "
I swear it
". By law, citizens must be “
up and uncovered
” at the time of this act. However, the applicant would have refused to remove her veil, and then persisted in her refusal.
President Benoît Persyn therefore took the decision to exempt the juror from her mission, and replaced her with a new person, reports
La Provence
.
This Friday, the Aix-en-Provence court was unreachable to confirm the information.
According to the law, if a juror does not appear or does not have a valid reason for not carrying out his mission, he can receive a fine of 3,750 euros.
"
Usually we make sure to prevent this kind of incident from happening,
" commented to our colleagues a regular at the Aix-en-Provence Assize Court, suggesting an unspoken rule to avoid any problem, consisting to challenge people wearing a veil before they sit in their jury chair.
Several precedents
Several cases of jurors creating an incident by their veil have been identified in recent years. First, in 2003, a thirty-something, named in a trial of a man for attempted murder of police officers, had been replaced at the Assize Court of the Bobigny court (Seine-Saint-Denis). At the time, the person had agreed to take the oath bareheaded according to
Le Parisien
, and had been dismissed by giving her religious attribute in session. Dominique Perben, then Keeper of the Seals, had approved a firm decision: "
It is important to give an image of neutrality and impartiality,
" he commented.
In 2011, it is a litigant who had been forced to reveal himself at the bar, despite his protests. In 2015, a juror refused to uncover herself when taking the oath: at the time the president had decided to exclude her, but also to impose a fine of 1000 euros, as requested by the Advocate General. Which was not the case last Thursday.