Grands colloques - Les technologies de l'information et de la communication au service de la justice du XXIe siècle -1 - 275

LAURENCE DUMOULIN AND CHRISTIAN LICOPPE

265

did not in fact concern the Presiding Judge but rather the substitute lawyer,
whose presence posed a problem. However, she was not present on the
screen, and did not have a microphone to hand (hers was shut off) unlike
the Presiding Judge who, having taken the floor, had an open microphone
(two microphones cannot be open at the same time without producing
interference which makes everything else inaudible). The substitute lawyer
took no part in the conversation. The Presiding Judge replied, feeling
compelled to produce some justification for a state of affairs which in
fact was not his responsibility, as it was completely a matter of the internal
organisation of the law firm: “Er, Mr Cristo is represented here, by his
collaborator, Ms Brodier. There, he has sent a collaborator, that’s all I can
tell you. Would you like to add something else?” The magistrate clearly
replied in place of the lawyer, while indicating by the phrase “that’s all
I can tell you” that he knew nothing more and that he was not the person
able to provide further explanation. The request was treated very rapidly,
almost hastily, in a tone which ended the discussion; the lawyer said
nothing, yet in another interactional context, and particularly if both had
been physically present in the same place, she could have leant towards
her client when he reached the box, introduced herself to him and briefly
explained the situation, as lawyers generally do when a client is transferred
from prison to attend the hearing in the flesh.
This episode is clearly linked to the difficulty introduced by the distance
between lawyers and clients. However, in this case, nobody thought to
inform the detainee of this substitution of counsel. Neither the Presiding
Judge, who in the same situation the following week did so with a very
brief, but still significant introductory formula,34 nor the lawyer, who did
not introduce herself to the detainee before beginning her speech, focused
as she was on the participants present on site (in this case the judges in
front of her). Some lawyers, in the same situation, if they have not been
presented or introduced by the judge, handle that first meeting explicitly
through a greeting or unambiguous presentation.35
In this particular case, the demand for justification, which appears pertinent from the point of view of the detainee, opens up a whole new playing
field. In order for the substitute lawyer to reply adequately (by explaining
who she is, but also why the detainee’s lawyer is not present: he was
attending another hearing, for example), because of the constraints of
videoconferencing, it would be necessary for the Presiding Judge to open
a sequence of exchange between the lawyer and her client. He did not
34. On opening the hearing: “Your lawyer is present in the room since Mr Grand has
been replaced by one of his colleagues” and later, when giving the lawyer the floor: “I’m
going to give the floor to Ms Desjoyaux, huh, who is standing in for Mr Ballistics”, observed
at the hearing on 19 January 2012, Grenoble Examining Chamber, Case No. 2.
35. Presiding Judge: “Ms Desjoyaux” [silence, the camera moves, the lawyer waits until
she appears on screen before speaking, microphone in hand] Hello Mr. Tourtour, Nathalie
Desjoyaux, I ... I am standing in for J.-P. Ballistics and I ... therefore I work for him,”
observed at the hearing on 19 January 2012, Grenoble Examining Chamber, Case No. 3.

Grands colloques - Les technologies de l'information et de la communication au service de la justice du XXIe siècle -1

Table des matières de la publication Grands colloques - Les technologies de l'information et de la communication au service de la justice du XXIe siècle -1