A bill in the French National Assembly is causing fierce controversy. While the government and conservative deputies want to give police forces more legal certainty in operations, human rights organizations, lawyers and parts of the opposition warn of a profound change to rule-of-law principles. At the center of the debate is the question whether police officers and gendarmes should in future benefit from a statutory presumption that the use of their firearms was lawful.
A new legal approach
The bill introduced by the conservative deputy Éric Pauget (Les Républicains) will be debated in the National Assembly on 7 July. Originally, the draft provided for an automatic presumption of self-defense when police officers or gendarmes used their firearm under certain operational conditions.
After several amendments supported by the government, the approach was however softened. Instead of a general presumption of self-defense, there will in future be a presumption of the lawfulness of the use of firearms. This would not automatically establish that self-defense occurred, but would assume that the shot was lawful at first, as long as a judicial investigation does not determine otherwise.
Legally this is a significant nuance. Whereas until now every fatal shot has been reviewed against the existing legal requirements, the new model would change the starting point of investigations.
Criticism of a shift in the burden of proof
Human rights organizations, associations of judges and bar associations see this as a profound interference with the previous balance of the French rule of law. In their view, the planned regulation would shift the practical burden of proof to the detriment of potential victims or their relatives.
To date, investigative authorities must determine whether all the prerequisites for a lawful use of firearms were met. With the proposed statutory presumption, lawfulness would be assumed at the outset. Critics fear that this would make criminal investigations more difficult and that potentially unlawful uses of firearms would less often lead to criminal consequences.
Particular emphasis is placed on the fundamental right to life, which is protected both by the French Constitution and by the European Convention on Human Rights. Opponents of the bill argue that every fatal shot by state security forces must still be subject to an independent and especially thorough review.
Broad alliance against the bill
An unusually broad alliance has formed against the bill. Critics include international human rights organizations, legal professional associations and several unions within the judiciary.
The French Defender of Rights (Défenseur des droits) also expressed significant reservations. In its statement it points out that the use of firearms is already subject to strict legal requirements. The principles of necessity and proportionality are sufficiently embedded in current law. An additional statutory presumption of lawfulness could undermine this carefully balanced system.
In parallel with the parliamentary debate, an online petition gathered more than 100,000 supporters within days. Signatories are calling on deputies to reject the bill in the interest of the rule of law.
Government points to rising violence
Supporters of the reform counter with the increased dangers faced by police officers and gendarmes. France has recorded a rising number of violent attacks on operational forces for years. Operations against armed perpetrators, drug-related crime or violent riots regularly place security forces in life-threatening situations.
Supporters argue that the current legal situation leads officers to fear lengthy criminal investigations after every firearm use—even when they clearly acted lawfully. The proposed statutory presumption is therefore intended not to create impunity, but merely to provide more legal certainty for officers who must make life-and-death decisions under extreme time pressure.
Strict legal requirements already apply today
The debate gains additional importance because France already fundamentally reformed the law on the use of firearms in 2017. Article L.435-1 of the French Code of Security unified the powers of the police and gendarmerie.
According to this, firearms may only be used when absolutely necessary and proportionate. The law lists several narrowly defined situations, such as the immediate defense of persons, the averting of an imminent danger, or the prevention of particularly serious crimes. Every use of a firearm is in principle subject to subsequent judicial review.
Critics of the new bill therefore see no need for an additional statutory presumption. The existing provisions already provide sufficient protection for both police officers and the public.
A debate about the balance between security and the rule of law
The dispute goes far beyond legal details. It touches on a fundamental conflict of modern democracies: How far may the state legally shield its security forces without at the same time weakening control over the use of lethal force?
While conservative parties and police unions call for stronger protection of operational personnel, civil rights organizations warn of a precedent that could undermine trust in the independence of criminal investigations.
Regardless of the outcome of the parliamentary deliberations, the debate demonstrates how sensitive the handling of state violence remains in France. Since the terrorist attacks of recent years, the Yellow Vests protests and several highly publicized police operations, the tension between internal security and individual liberties has repeatedly been at the center of political conflict. The National Assembly’s decision will therefore likely have signaling effects far beyond the specific text of the law for the self-image of the French rule of law.
Author: P. Tiko