On May 13, 2025, the Paris Judicial Court sentenced a famous actor to 18 months of suspended imprisonment for multiple sexual assaults committed by surprise.
The Court based its decision on Article 222-22 of the French Penal Code, which states in its first paragraph:
“A sexual assault is any sexual contact committed with violence, coercion, threat or surprise or, in cases provided by law, committed on a minor by an adult…”
The actor was accused of having repeatedly touched the buttocks, chest, and genitals of two women over their clothes in 2021.
Recognition of Victims’ Testimonies in Sexual Offenses
In the absence of direct material evidence, the Court relied on a body of corroborating evidence, including consistent statements from the victims, testimonies from relatives contacted shortly after the events, and a medical report establishing a total incapacity for work (ITT) compatible with post-traumatic stress.
The defendant’s own contradictions further weakened the defense.
This approach to evidence, centered on the credibility of the victims’ accounts, represents a significant development.
An Individualized but Controversial Sentence
The sentence — 18 months of simple suspended imprisonment — may appear lenient given the maximum penalty under Article 222-27 of the Penal Code, which allows up to five years’ imprisonment and a €75,000 fine.
Pursuant to the principle of individualized sentencing, the judges considered mitigating factors in favor of the defendant, such as his lack of prior convictions, his advanced age, and health condition.
As an additional penalty, the Court also stripped the defendant of his eligibility rights.
Freedom of Speech for Lawyers Undermined by Secondary Victimization
Secondary victimization refers to the harm suffered by victims of sexual violence due to their treatment by the judicial system.
In this case, the Court ordered the actor to pay €1,000 to each complainant for this type of harm, due to statements deemed offensive made by his lawyer during the hearing.
Such a ruling raises concerns. Article 41, paragraph 4 of the Law of July 29, 1881, grants lawyers immunity within the courtroom for arguments made in court:
“No legal action for defamation, insult or contempt shall arise from a faithful and good-faith report of court proceedings, nor from speeches or written submissions presented before the courts.”
Therefore, penalizing the defendant for remarks that were part of his lawyer’s defense strategy presents a real challenge in terms of the rights of the defense.
If a lawyer’s freedom of speech is to be limited, it should be through disciplinary proceedings or by pursuing the lawyer’s personal civil liability — not by financially penalizing the client.
This case highlights the ongoing tension between the need to protect victims and the fundamental rights of the defense.
It underscores the fragility of the judicial balance when dealing with high-profile sexual violence cases, where victim testimony and defense rights can come into conflict.
The defendant has appealed the ruling, so the case is not yet final.
