With a bleeding head, a woman runs to take refuge with one of her neighbors. She has just vomited, after being assaulted by her ex-husband, in the middle of the street. The latter, furious with her, would have struck her several punches in the face, causing her to fall. Then he would have let his anger flare up again by hitting her to the ground. A few days after this violence, committed on May 9, 2021 in Clamart, the man will go himself to the police station to be heard by the police. The victim, who will collect a 10-day ITT, will also be auditioned.
According to her, her ex-companion would have waited in the lobby of her building for her to go downstairs to do the shopping. It was then that he would have attacked her, calling her “Bitch”, asking him to “shut his mouth” and put on his veil properly. Out in the street, the victim would have suffered punches and nudges, before a gang of young people from the city came to put an end to the carnage.
The man, brought before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Nanterre on June 30, will bring his version of the facts. “I only gave him one blow … maybe two,” the defendant declared without much precision. Afterwards, young people separated us ”. The accused, with a clean record, has been living in a hotel since his separation from the mother of his children. The latter would not respect the terms of the agreement signed at the time of her divorce and which grants two weekends per month of custody to the father.
“She refuses all communication with me, the accused will complain, to whom the victim allegedly asked to come to her home through a niece. Each time, I spend two hours in traffic to pick up the children from her house and in the end, she refuses to give them to me ”. The defendant then lowers his head in the box. His voice turns to treble. “But, I regret (what I did) because it hurts everyone”, if you complain-t-il.
After the president of the court had taught him a lesson as to the procedure to follow in the event of non-compliance with the convention, he tried to clarify the course of the facts. “Did you hit her to the ground?” “, he will question. “No, she must have injured herself with the pin of her veil when she fell”, retorted the defendant, as an explanation for the victim’s injuries.
“The fact remains that when someone falls, it can be fatal and then there is the Assize Court”, will remind the magistrate, trying to make the accused aware of the dangerousness of his behavior. The partial recognition of the violence with which he is accused will support the requisitions of the public prosecution, extended to 8 months suspended prison sentence and a ban on contact with the victim.
The defense lawyer will insist on the exasperation of a father who has not been able to see his children for weeks. “Madame does not respect any of the terms of the agreement. She thinks that since she was divorced, she has an absolute right to the children ”, he will accuse, before stressing that this “Does not justify the violence”.
His argument will mainly aim to request the requalification of the alleged facts. Indeed, the prosecution has seen fit to prosecute the defendant for violence against minors under 15, because the children would have seen the assault of their mother through a window. However, nothing will formally attest to this thesis. A point of detail not trivial, because likely to increase the maximum penalty incurred from five to seven years. The court, after having reclassified the facts, will sentence the man to a six-month suspended sentence, with an internship on domestic violence.
PHOTO CREDIT : LA DEFENSE GAZETTE
–
