Leaks in the Bruel affair: investigative secrecy under threat, inquiry in jeopardy
Paris Match published details from Patrick Bruel's questioning during his police custody. According to a Belgian judge, these leaks constitute a serious offence that could undermine the investigation.
Breach of investigative secrecy: what the Bruel inquiry risks
The publication by Paris Match of details from Patrick Bruel's questioning, conducted during his police custody in June, reignites a sensitive legal debate. DHnet gathered analysis from Denis Goeman, judge at the French-language court of first instance in Brussels and columnist on LN24, who speaks frankly of a "breach of investigative secrecy".
The offence is serious: according to Article 669 of the new Criminal Code, it is punishable by six months to three years in prison, and a fine ranging from 200 to 20,000 euros.
A phenomenon expanding
Judge Goeman observes that this type of leak is multiplying. "It happens increasingly frequently in judicial cases that generally attract high media attention. In France, but also here at home," he points out. Extracts from questioning sessions or official reports sometimes end up being published in their entirety in the press. He cites the Qatar Gate case as an example, a file that has regularly fed the media in this way.
Broadened access to case files
The origin of these leaks may involve far more people than one might suppose. "All the police officers and magistrates in charge of the investigation" potentially have access to case documents, Goeman recalls. Official reports can moreover be transmitted through administrative channels, further widening the circle of people liable to come into contact with confidential material.
Storage of case files also poses a problem. Physical versions are not systematically secured in locked cabinets within prosecution offices or chambers. And "they are increasingly often scanned online", the judge emphasises, which raises a further question: who can access them remotely? "It has happened in the past that police officers having nothing to do with an ongoing investigation have been prosecuted for accessing a file in order to pass information to journalists."
Consequences for the procedure
Investigative secrecy is not mere formality. It guarantees investigators the peace of mind necessary to establish the truth, Goeman insists. "If each time someone is questioned, a transcript of their questioning appears, it can undermine the investigations of the various investigators, police officers, and so on."
The judge illustrates the risk: "Imagine someone is mentioned as a person under investigation before a search of their home is even carried out. You can well imagine that nothing will be found there." A disclosed questioning can also be contradicted by another, thus giving "a false impression of the reality of a case".
The defence can invoke nullity
The consequences do not stop at the investigation itself. According to Goeman, lawyers have already protested against such breaches, believing that their clients' right to a defence had been violated. "A series of elements that appeared in the press may have 'vitiated' the investigation," he explains. It then falls to the judge in charge of the substantive examination of the case to assess whether these leaks have actually compromised the procedure.
The work of an investigating judge or prosecutor is already complex in normal times, the judge concludes. Media leaks in cases that attract significant attention make it even more burdensome — and can, in the most serious cases, weaken the entire judicial procedure.
Source: DHnet