“No photo, delete that photo for me, it's not allowed here, just as it's not allowed to eat in here.” The president of the criminal court had not even entered the courtroom but already the prosecutor was laying down the law. A lawyer went and told the defendants' many supporters who had turned up: “The prosecutors is strict so no food or mobiles during the entire hearing.” At the back, standing against a wall, another prosecutor, not dressed in her usual courtroom attire, turned to the person next to her: “We really are unpopular.”
The time was around 1.30pm on Tuesday May 28th 2019, and one of the largest courtrooms at the courthouse in Bourg-en-Bresse in the east of France was already full. A few minutes later six defendants were due to appear, accused of removing a photo portrait of President Emmanuel Macron from a town hall meeting room at Jassans-Riottier, about 30 miles south-west of Bour-en-Bresse, on March 2nd 2019. They all face charges of group theft by deception, and five of them of failing to provide a DNA sample. All risk, in theory, jail terms of up to ten years.
Half-an-hour earlier those same defendants had been greeted by cheers as they arrived at the courthouse. Several hundred people chanted their support, saying they were all in it together. Corinne Morel Darleux, a councillor for the left-wing Parti de Gauche on the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region of south-east France and David Cormand, national secretary of the green party Europe Écologie-Les Verts (EELV), spoke in defence of the six accused.
This is the first trial to take place since the campaign to take down official portraits of the president began at the start of the year. Nine others trials are planned. But even more may take place as on the same Tuesday at the trial began, no fewer that 13 'take down' actions were carried out in various parts of France. In all 53 presidential photo portraits have been 'requisitioned' in this way. Across France 48 people have been held in custody and 38 searches have been carried out.
The six people on trial at Bourg-en-Bresse did not have what one might call criminal profiles. Nicolas Guerrini, 51, who is divorced and has three children who are “very proud of dad”, is planning to open a restaurant after the summer; Hélène Lacroix-Baudrion is a maths teacher; Philippe Muraille is a retired civil servant; Jean-Marie Roche is an organic market gardener; Anne-Sophie Trujillo-Gauchez, who is married with three grown-up children, advises non-governmental organisations; and Vincent Versluys works as a manager for the state rail firm SNCF. All are members of the movement Alternatiba-ANV-COP21, with 'ANV' standing for non-violent and the COP21 referring to the climate change summit held in Paris in December 2015.
Enlargement : Illustration 1
Opposite them were the prosecutor and also the mayor of Jassans-Riottier, Jean-Pierre Reverchon. He was not present at the time of the “theft” and he was not seeking financial recompense. But he was there to represent the mayor's secretary who was there during the “theft” and who was, he says, very “shocked” by events.
The trial had scarcely opened when the first skirmish began between the prosecutor and the defendants' lawyers, Thomas Fourrey, Christelle Mercier and Sophie Pochard. They were planning to call as witnesses Jean-François Julliard, director general of Greenpeace France, Wolfgang Cramer, a geographer and ecologist at the CNRS research institute and a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and Frédi Meignan, president of the national association for the protection of mountains, Mountain Wilderness France.
But the prosecutor argued that these three witnesses would shed no light on the events themselves or the character of the accused and called for these witnesses to be rejected. The defence lawyer Thomas Fourrey meanwhile argued that these “knowledgeable” witnesses could assist with the defence case that the accused should be acquitted. “Knowledgeable people or witnesses?” asked the court president. “Knowledgeable witnesses,” replied the lawyer. After a few minutes of deliberation the verdict came: the three experts, Cramer, Julliard and Meignan, had had a wasted journey.
The president of the court's comments were not without humour, even if one was not always sure it was intended. For example, when addressing Nicolas Guerrini the judge said: “How did you come up with the idea of stealing a photo? Steal a portrait to save humanity?” The defendant explained that it was about “making oneself heard” and hoping that the state take the right measures in the face of the climate emergency. He added: “We did it rather well.”
The mayor of Jassans-Riottier, Jean-Pierre Reverchon, then intervened to say he was astonished by the choice of town to target, given that it had already done a lot for the environment. “Your town hall was chosen by chance,” Guerrini said. “We found it very sweet.”
The prosecutor then gave his view of events, developing his theme that what was involved was a “concerted” action by an obscure organisation with a very political goal. “How do you explain the fact that there were several actions right across France? Who led this campaign?” the state persecutor asked. Guerrini replied: “ANV-COP21, we communicate that in a sufficiently transparent way.”
Next up was Hélène Lacroix-Baudrion, who explained that it had been a “symbolic” action. The photo had been taken down to “show that the state had fallen down in its commitments”. When questioned about her refusal to give a DNA sample she hesitated, clearly ill at ease: “I don't feel I am a criminal, even if I understand that the justice system, in legal terms, speaks about theft. But for us it's symbolic, for example we got the portrait out recently for a rally for poppies [editor's note, as part of a call to end the use of pesticides].”
The prosecutor resumed his attack. “You all made use of your right to silence, that suggests that you'd all come to an agreement, is that the case?” he asked, suggesting there was an organisation with instructions. Hélène Lacroix-Baudrion confirmed: “We were all in agreement.” The prosecutor replied: “So you confirm there were instructions?” To which the defendant responded: “No, they were not instructions.”
Philippe Muraille was called and he explained that the idea of removing the portraits came from a joint campaign by four NGOs called “The big issue of the century”, which targeted the state's failure to honour its commitments to fight climate change. The court president upped the stakes, suggesting that taking down the portrait of the president was a “bit of a violation of the authority of the state”. Muraille acknowledged that their action had involved a “powerful” symbol, but said that inaction was also a powerful symbol. “Between the two, it's no contest,” he added.
It seemed as if the court discussion was now getting to the heart of the issue. “It makes me think that it's something to do with anarchy,” said the court president. “Do you think that it has something to do with climate change? Don't you think that would require quite a strong government? Does weakening public authority help that?” Philippe Muraille remained unflappable. “I venture to hope that public authority does not just consist of a photo in a town hall room.”
'If you elect people for no reason, it's anarchy!'
When it was Anne-Sophie Trujillo-Gauchez's turn to appear, she described the events at the town hall. According to the mayor of Jassans-Riottier, Jean-Pierre Reverchon, the mayor's secretary had been “shocked”, even if she had not told detectives this. The prosecutor asked Trujillo-Gauchez: “Can you understand that this woman was frightened?” To which the defendant replied: “That's why we have guardian angels.” This is a reference to fellow activists whose role it is to reassure people not involved about what the aim of the action is and to make it clear that it is non-violent in nature.
The president of the court then outlined his vision of civil disobedience. For him it should involve an act of refusal, not one of theft. “We reject the term theft, we will return the photos to them,” said Trujillo-Gauchez. “You're putting conditions on it so you're not going to return them,” replied the judge, who suddenly seemed to have little confidence that the government would act on climate change. The defendant replied: “But I believe in politics! If you elect people for no reason, it's anarchy!”
When Jean-Marie Roche's turn came the young market gardener immediately started talking about the fundamental issues. “I have the impression that people don't grasp what's happening to us. The IPCC scientists explain in their latest forecasts that [global temperatures] will be +5 degrees by 2100. That could lead to a reduction in the population to one billion people. That's what shocks me.”
SNCF manager Vincent Versluys became interested in the climate when he fell ill in 2016. “I told myself, you're from the generation which is responsible so you must act. I was very shocked, I didn't know what to do.” He told the court that he had a serious job and was in charge of purchasing and audits. “When you carry out an audit you look at the risks entailed and you try to reduce the consequences. Today we know what is awaiting us, we know the causes, we know what has to be done and, moreover, we have made commitments. But it appals me when we don't do things.”
The questioning of the town's mayor, who as is permitted under French law had opted to be made a civil party to the criminal proceedings, led to an interesting exchange with the court's president. The mayor asked for his portrait of the president to be returned.
Court president: “Have you replaced this portrait?”
Mayor: “No, I am under no obligation to buy one. There's a space.”
Court president: “There's no question of you buying one?”
Mayor: “That would make no sense. People must change their ways.”
Thomas Forrey, defence lawyer: “Having a portrait of the president in the town hall, it's a custom not an obligation.”
Mayor: “I had a sense of obligation.”
Court president: “What's the first portrait that the town hall kept?”
Mayor: “One of de Gaulle”[editor's note, Charles de Gaulle, French president from 1959 to 1969].
In his summing up of the case the prosecutor first of all sought, in a roundabout fashion, to explain what led him to believe that the action was part of a vast, concerted organisation. He explained that a friend had called him at midday to inform him that a demonstration had taken place at Bourg-en-Bresse over the theft of a presidential picture. “After I put the phone down I said to myself, they are damned strong,” said the prosecutor, giving the impression of not being aware of the campaign that had started several months earlier.
In the prosecutor's words this public campaign, for which those involved had claimed full responsibility, became a “highly-organised plan prepared at national level, by an organisation that I can't name because I don't know it, with the same modus operandi, with the aim of getting their convictions talked about”. This provoked smiles in the courtroom.
But for the prosecutor the word “convictions” had a particular meaning. As far as he was concerned, to argue - as the three defence lawyers had sought to do – that their clients were operating according to the 'doctrine of necessity', they had to show that the action was carried out in support of a higher interest. But in law, he explained, a higher interest is something that is assessed objectively and must be “perceived as such by everyone”. That was not the case here, said the prosecutor, citing the example of Donald Trump as someone who thought differently. In doing so the prosecutor quickly forgot that just three hours earlier he had objected to the presence of three witnesses who could have set out the scientific consensus about the climate threat.
The prosecutor called for five of the defendants to be fined 2,000 euros; 1,000 euros for the group theft using deception and 1,000 euros for the refusal to give a DNA sample. He asked for the sixth defendant to be fined 1,000 euros over the theft.
In her closing remarks, defence lawyer Sophie Pochard cited two dates that needed to be remembered in her view: May 15th, or Overshoot Day, the day when France had already consumed in the year more resources than the Earth could replenish that year, and May 1st, the day when the British Parliament declared a state of climate emergency. She ended by calling for the defendants to be acquitted over their refusal to give a DNA sample, basing her case on a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights against France on this issue.
Fellow defence barrister Christelle Mercier sought to demonstrate that the 'doctrine of necessity' – under which a breach of the law is accepted as necessary to prevent even worse harm occurring – applied to this case. She said that the removal of the portraits had taken place after other, legal, actions, had been carried out without success. The science was clear on the subject and there was a consensus. Finally, Christelle Mercier argued, the act itself was proportionate. “The interest that was sacrificed, which is the portrait of the president of the Republic, has to be set against another interest which one is trying to safeguard, which is the planet,” she said.
The third defence lawyer, Thomas Fourrey, was the most overtly political of the defence team in his final speech. His clients were reasonable people, he said, people deeply worried by the climate crisis who could not help but notice that after the “cries of victory after the Paris Agreement in 2015” nothing concrete had been done. It had been a “great hope dashed, betrayed, there are no other words,” said Thomas Fourrey. He argued the defendants should be acquitted.
The judgement is due on June 12th. “At any rate, I'm going to try,” said the president of the court. If not, the verdict will be delivered a month later. Meanwhile the portrait 'take down' campaign is in full swing. ANV-COP21 recently announced publicly that it wants to have taken down 125 portraits before the next G7 summit, which takes place at the end of August in Biarritz in south-west France.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- The French version of this article can be found here.
English version by Michael Streeter