Sexual assault

Initial situation

Our client, Mr. D., a French national and company director living abroad, was placed under formal investigation on charges of rape, before the facts were reclassified as sexual assault against a partner during the judicial investigation. By judgment of the criminal court, he was found guilty and sentenced to four years' imprisonment, including two years of immediate custody. A committal order was issued at the hearing: Mr. D. was incarcerated immediately, more than 500 kilometres from his partner and the child he was raising. The stakes were considerable: a damaging conviction in a sexual-offence case, a particularly testing period of detention, and several professional contracts jeopardised by his imprisonment.

Legal issues

The case raised a dual difficulty. On the criminal side, the defence had to demonstrate before the Court of Appeal that the constitutive elements of sexual assault were not in fact established, and that the first-instance conviction rested on a flawed assessment of the evidence and the facts. On the compensation side, once the acquittal was secured, an application had to be brought before the Paris Court of Appeal to obtain redress for the 92 days of unjust pre-trial detention.

Criminal defence: securing acquittal on appeal

1. Critical analysis and deconstruction of the prosecution file

In sexual-offence cases, the complainant's account is often the central element of the prosecution. The firm conducted an exhaustive and methodical review of the entire case file: interview records, expert reports, investigative measures, medical evidence. This analysis exposed inconsistencies, shifts in statements over time and gaps in the prosecution evidence, without ever attacking the complainant personally beyond the strictly factual contradictions in the file.

2. Demonstrating that the constitutive elements were not made out

The defence showed point by point that the constitutive elements of sexual assault were not established against Mr. D.: no coercion, no threat, no violence, no surprise within the meaning of Article 222-22 of the Criminal Code. The argument relied on a precise analysis of successive statements and of the objective elements in the file.

3. Closing argument on appeal

The oral argument before the Court of Appeal pulled these strands together into a structured demonstration, leading the Court to acquit Mr. D. in full on every count.

Compensation proceedings: redress for wrongful detention

Once the acquittal was final, the firm immediately filed an application before the Paris Court of Appeal to obtain compensation for the 92 days of wrongful pre-trial detention. This procedure, set out at Article 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allows any person who has undergone pre-trial detention followed by a dismissal, an acquittal or a discharge to obtain compensation for the loss suffered.

The firm documented every head of loss: the psychological impact of incarceration, jeopardised professional contracts, moral harm linked to family separation, and the especially difficult conditions of detention more than 500 kilometres from Mr. D.'s home. Faced with State attempts to minimise the award, the firm held its position and secured significant compensation, in the range of several tens of thousands of euros.

What the law says: sexual assault and compensation

Sexual assault is defined at Article 222-22 of the Criminal Code as any sexual act committed through coercion, threat, violence or surprise. It is punishable by five years' imprisonment and a 75,000 EUR fine. The absence of any one of the constitutive elements (coercion, threat, violence, surprise) is sufficient to bar conviction.

Article 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for compensation of wrongful pre-trial detention where it is followed by a dismissal, an acquittal or a discharge. Compensation covers moral, material and professional loss caused by the detention.

Learn more about pre-trial detention

This case study is published for educational purposes. Names and identifying details have been anonymised. It does not constitute a guarantee of result, as every case is unique in its facts and legal context.