The Nanterre public prosecutor’s office opened, in mid-December 2020, a preliminary investigation for “false testimony” against the Paris police prefect, Didier Lallement, the first president of the Paris court of appeal, Jean-Michel Hayat , and his attorney general Catherine Champrenault, the Paris prosecutor, Rémy Heitz, and the former head of the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (PNF) Eliane Houlette.
At the origin of this procedure, the deputy La France insoumise (LFI) of the North Ugo Bernalicis, who had gone to court in September, accusing these personalities of perjury during their hearings by the commission of inquiry of the National Assembly on “Obstacles to the independence of the judiciary”. This procedure was disoriented in Nanterre while the investigations concerning two other personalities, the director of the national police, Frédéric Veaux, and the former prosecutor of Nice Jean-Michel Prêtre, also targeted by Mr. Bernalicis, remain in the hands of the Paris prosecutor’s office, according to AFP.
Non-fitting versions
The parliamentary commission of inquiry chaired by Mr. Bernalicis, and whose deputy La République en Marche de la Côte-d’Or Didier Paris was rapporteur, had conducted hearings in the greatest discretion throughout the first half of 2020 until to that of Mme Houlette, June 10. Asked about the conditions of the investigation carried out by the PNF on François Fillon and his wife in the midst of the campaign for the 2017 presidential election, the former financial prosecutor claimed to have suffered “Pressures” of the Attorney General of Paris because of the multiple feedbacks she had requested.
Faced with the emotion caused by these statements, the parliamentarians had summoned Mr.me Champrenault a second time, on July 2. But the versions of the two high magistrates on the events of February 2017 were not completely correct, which made Mr. Bernalicis say that one of the two had to lie. The disagreements concerned in particular the number of information feedback requested by the general prosecutor’s office and the nature of a working meeting between the magistrates of the two prosecutors.
Returning to this episode on the occasion of the solemn re-entry of the Paris Court of Appeal, Thursday, January 14, Mr.me Champrenault in particular reiterated having “Deplored that what was only the regular functioning of the public prosecution, that is to say the dialogue between public prosecutors and the general prosecutor, and the possible power of instruction in the matter of prosecution of the latter, can be presented as pressure of any kind “.
You have 37.03% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.
–
