The recorded timeline
Police custody began on 7 June at 6.20 pm. According to the times recorded in the order, the German interpreter was not requested until 8.14 pm and the rights were notified at 8.17 pm.
The court found no material justifying this delay of almost two hours. The person was assisted by Maître Nolwenn Le Sayec under the duty scheme.
The interpreting delay
Notification of rights must be effective in a language the person understands. The court did not stop at the fact that an interpreter eventually attended; it examined when the request was made and the lack of an explanation for the delay.
The reasoning depended on times recorded in the official reports. Any other case requires the same reconstruction before deciding whether a delay was justified and affected the exercise of rights.
Evidence concerning food
The order also noted the absence of evidence that food had been offered between the start of custody at 6.20 pm and 8.24 am the next morning, a period of almost fourteen hours. It considered what the file could prove rather than turning a missing record into an abstract assertion.
That issue was assessed together with notification of rights and interpreting. Registers, monitoring sheets and reports are therefore important evidence of material conditions.
Outcome and limited scope
Having found the procedure irregular, the court refused the prefecture’s application for an extension. The person was not kept in detention under that application.
The order does not mean that every interpreting delay or documentary gap automatically results in release. Article L. 743-12 requires an assessment of the formality and substantial impairment of rights in the particular procedure.
Discuss your situation
You can send the firm the essential facts, relevant dates and any known deadline.
Frequently asked questions
What delay did the court examine?
Custody began at 6.20 pm; the interpreter was requested at 8.14 pm and rights notified at 8.17 pm, with no justification identified for the delay.
Did the court state that no food had been provided?
It noted the absence of evidence that food had been offered before 8.24 am the next day. The distinction between the event and its documentary trace matters.
Does this order automatically release everyone in a similar situation?
No. The judge assesses the particular timeline, supporting records and impairment of rights in each file.