Why are convicted criminals not always fully named in French court trials?

If you follow French crime reporting, you'll notice that it's routine to see only a suspect's first name and initial - for example Serge G or Napoleon B. It's a mixture of legal responsibility and editorial decision - but the high profile Pelicot case has reopened discussion on this issue in France.

A total 51 people were convicted in December for raping Gisèle Pelicot over a period of several years but only one of them - her ex-husband Dominique Pelicot - has been named in full by all media in France, while the others have been identified by their initials or their first names and the initial letter of their surname.

READ ALSO Court convicts all defendants in French mass rape trial, husband jailed for 20 years

So, anyone who followed the trial through most (but not all) of the French press would recognise the accused as Cyrille D, Husamettin D, Fabien S, Mathieu D, or Lionel R, for example. 

It doesn’t take a lot of effort to find their full names online, on social media, but usually from sources outside the ranks of the French media.

So why are the guardians of the fourth estate in France so reticent to name those in the dock?

“Everyone has the right to the presumption of innocence” the French Civil Code states clearly. It’s a common enough principle, and one that props up numerous legal systems. 

READ ALSO ANALYSIS: Will the Pelicot rape trial lead to lasting change in France?

This principle prevents the media in numerous countries branding someone suspected of murder as a ‘murderer’ before they are convicted in court of the crime of murder. 

No matter how overwhelming the evidence, it is not the prerogative of the media to decide an accused person’s guilt or innocence. That is the responsibility of a court, at the end of a trial. Any qualified journalist should tell you that.

Following this principle, the men in the dock alongside Dominique Pelicot – who had admitted his guilt – were all described as ‘accused’, with the crimes classified as 'alleged' - until they were finally convicted on December 19th.

Now it is entirely legal - and accurate - to describe them as rapists.

The general principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' is international, but exactly how countries and their media apply it in practice varies.

What you won’t see in France, are so-called ‘perp walks’ in which a high-profile suspect is paraded in front of the cameras before they are judged. For example the American Luigi Mangione, suspected of the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, went through just this spectacle, in orange jumpsuit and handcuffs and flanked by numerous law officials, on December 19th.

This would not happen in France and French law also recognises the right of a suspect not to be handcuffed as a matter of routine upon arrest and prohibits the media publishing images of suspects in France in handcuffs. 

The UK does not routinely do 'perp walks' either and while suspects are usually named in full once a court case begins, British journalists are severely limited in what they can publish while a case is ongoing.

In France media are, generally, allowed to publish the identities of the accused once a trial has begun. In many cases, however, they do not. Many notably did not in the trial of the men accused of raping Gisèle Pelicot.

In fact, the only reason that we know the name Gisèle Pelicot is due to her choice. She waived her right to anonymity – routinely given to victims of sexual assault – refused to have the trial held behind closed doors, and testified in open court. She explained her choice by saying that 'the shame must change sides' - explaining that she had nothing to be ashamed of, it is her rapists who should feel shame.

If it hadn't been for this choice, Dominique Pelicot would have remained Dominique P.

Media choice

But if you were following the French media coverage in detail, you would notice that some newspapers named all the accused, while others did not.

The difference? Simple editorial choice.

La Provence’s Laurent d’Ancona told the Institut national de l'audiovisuel’s online Revue that he had initially planned to fully name all the accused but changed his mind in favour of first name, last initial to try to protect family members of the accused living in Mazan or the surrounding areas, while arguing that: “if we anonymise completely, we leave the fantasy, exploited by the fachosphere, that there is a certain typical profile of rapist [ie perpetuating the entirely false stereotype that rapists are disproportionately non-white or from immigrant backgrounds].

"First names and professions break this idea and show the plurality of profiles, it speaks to the culture of rape.”

Ouest France, meanwhile, ignored its own policy of naming accused who attend court from prison because it did not have a journalist at court at first, and relied on syndicated reporting until it could get one there, by which time reporting standards for this case were established. 

Dauphiné Libéré and its sister publications, however, with journalists on site, stuck to its guidelines and named the accused.

But Agence France Presse decided not to identify most of the individuals accused, arguing an ‘increased responsibility’ because AFP stories are published in multiple languages all over the world.

Le Monde, too, decided to maintain the anonymity of the accused.

This piecemeal approach to identify or not to identify doesn’t always help individual newspapers in the public trust stakes – particularly in cases as high-profile as this, where people may find information on one site that isn’t on another for editorial reasons. But each organisation has its own rules and policies. Maybe explaining what they are might help. 

Appeals

Even after their convictions, some media in France have so far refrained from publishing full names of the men convicted alongside Dominique Pelicot. That is because they have a window of opportunity in which to appeal against their convictions. 

To date, lawyers for two of the 51 convicted men have said they will appeal. Others may follow. Gisèle Pelicot has said that she is ‘not afraid’ of the ordeal of a second trial. 

“She will face it,” one of her lawyers told France Inter on Friday. “She is not afraid of it. If it were to happen, she has already told us that she would face it – if her health allows, of course, because she is a 72-year-old lady. But, in any case, it does not scare her.”

But, for the accused, appealing against a criminal conviction resets the bar. To all intents and purposes the first court’s ruling is voided, and the accused is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ all over again - this is the reason why in most cases sentences are not enacted until the appeals process is completed (which is how high profile defendants like ex president Nicolas Sarkozy spend years at liberty despite being convicted of a crime).