The Paris Court of Appeal examined on Tuesday the appeal of Sophie Patterson-Spatz against the dismissal of the case rendered last July in favor of the Minister of the Interior Gérald Darmanin, whom she accuses of having raped her in 2009. The investigating chamber of the court of appeal will render its decision on January 24, a judicial source told AFP.
Neither Sophie Patterson-Spatz nor Gérald Darmanin were present at this hearing, which was held behind closed doors.
According to documents consulted by AFP, the public prosecutor's office requested confirmation of the dismissal, dismissing "
the hypothesis of false or malicious accusations
" by Ms. Patterson-Spatz, but considering that "
it can only be considered (she) did not consent to the sexual act
”.
The plaintiff's lawyer considered, on the contrary, that her client was not consenting.
Me Élodie Tuaillon-Hibon evokes a "
surprise rape
" and an "
extorted
" sexual relationship, "
neither free nor consented
".
"
We hope to have been heard and understood and that we will finally be entitled to some justice
," she said after the hearing.
"
The incriminating elements for the rape are present in the file and so far it has been decided not to take them into account
".
Read also Accusation of rape against Gérald Darmanin: the complainant appeals the dismissal
The lawyers for the Minister of the Interior, Mes Pierre-Olivier Sur and Mathias Chichportich, did not wish to react.
This affair weighed on the government action of Mr. Darmanin, first in Public Accounts then in the Interior since July 2020, faced with demonstrations to demand his resignation during his travels.
Since 2017, Ms. Patterson-Spatz, 50, has publicly accused her of rape, sexual harassment and breach of trust, for facts which allegedly occurred in Paris in 2009. She had decided to file a complaint after the appointment to the government by Mr. Darmanin in May 2017.
SMS exchange
After investigations closed three times and procedural disputes, Ms. Patterson-Spatz had obtained in the summer of 2020 the appointment of an investigating judge to examine her charges.
In 2009, the complainant contacted Gérald Darmanin, then project manager in the legal affairs department for the UMP, which became LR, to obtain help in reviewing a conviction in 2004 for blackmail and malicious calls. towards an ex-companion.
According to her, he had dangled his possible support during an evening, via a letter that he undertook to write to the Chancellery, and asked in exchange for a sexual relationship.
The Complainant and the Minister both acknowledge a sexual relationship.
Read alsoFor Christmas and Hanouka, Gérald Darmanin wants police in front of every place of worship
But Sophie Patterson-Spatz believes that she was forced to “
go to the pan
” with Mr. Darmanin, feeling “
held hostage
” when the latter, then 26 years old, said to her: “
you too will have to help me
”.
For his part, the Minister of the Interior claims to have "
given in to the charms
" of an "
enterprising
" complainant.
An exchange of text messages between them nine months later is at the heart of the case.
Ms. Patterson-Spatz wrote to him: “
Abuse of position.
For my part, it's being a dirty con (...) When you know the effort it took me to fuck with you.
To take care of my case
”.
Gérald Darmanin replies: “
You're right, I'm probably a dirty prick.
How to forgive myself ?
»
The magistrate had placed Mr. Darmanin under the status of assisted witness in December 2020 and then confronted the minister and the complainant for nine hours the following March, before dismissing the case.
In her order, she noted that "
the sincerity of the statements
" of Sophie Patterson-Spatz as to a rape "
cannot be called into question
".
But added that "
she deliberately chose to have a sexual relationship with him in order to have his criminal case retried
".
Gérald Darmanin "
could legitimately be mistaken about the intentions
" of the complainant even if in the SMS, "
he implicitly admits that he was able to take advantage of the situation
", argued the investigating judge.
“
The law is not to be confused with morality
”, she however considered, considering that the complainant was “
consenting under the law
”.