On 14 July, the London courts handed down their final decision in one of the most chilling cases in professional football. Benjamin Mendy, the 2018 world champion and pillar of Manchester City’s defence, accused of eight rapes, one attempted rape and one sexual assault committed against seven women between October 2018 and August 2021, was finally acquitted of all the charges brought against him.
However, it was a determined prosecutor who, at the opening of the trial on 10 August 2022, fell into the trap of shortcuts that sportsmen and women are regularly the target of: « This has very little to do with football. It’s another chapter in a very old story: men who rape and assault women because they think they have the power and because they think they’ll get away with it’.
On 13 January 2023, after fourteen days of deliberation, the jury at the Crown Court of Chester returned a verdict that resembled a judicial shipwreck: acquittal for six rapes committed against four women, and for one sexual assault committed against a fifth. The two charges remained without a verdict, as the jurors were unable to reach a decision, leading the footballer to appear once again before Chester Crown Court for this final trial, which came to an end on 14 July. As with all cases that rock the world of sport and showbiz, many commentators were quick to swear that the case was over as soon as it had begun. And despite his acquittal on 13 January 2022, the BBC continued to write, in a subtle way attacking the player’s image rather than the inanity of the charges: ‘ Despite his acquittal on all but two charges, Benjamin Mendy may still be struggling to shake the image he has in court – a sex-crazed, out-of-control multi-millionaire ’.
After the hearing on 14 July, the question for the player was whether a club would ever put its trust in him again. With the acquittal having replaced the presumption of innocence, Benjamin Mendy entered court innocent, only to leave even more innocent. The Crown Court in Chester agreed, giving his professional life a new lease of life. On 19 July, FC Lorient announced that they had signed a contract with the player.
The honest application of our principles encourages us to question our relationship with the presumption of innocence and the patience – as long as the proceedings – that it demands of us. Can smoke have an origin other than fire? This case proves it. It shows us the extent to which the press and media are occupied with accusations and versions of the case against a defence that lacks the time, information and interest to respond to them. What reason is there for reacting through the media when only the legal process is able to acquiesce and give force to the proclaimed innocence?
It is an almost natural reflex to believe that the multiplicity of accusations would be a guarantee of guilt that would be pointless to prove. French criminal procedure does not protect the accused against the conspiracies that complainants are likely to indulge in, sometimes involving witnesses close to them. These arrangements with the truth are even facilitated by the fact that they can appoint the same counsel. And if the defence should notice a gradual convergence of the versions put forward by the complainants, there will never be a lack of judges to offer a trivial explanation: the time needed for the complainants to consolidate their version is the reward for the courage that their denunciation implies.
Conversely, any change in the accused would be tantamount to withholding evidence against him or her, since it is generally accepted that an innocent person should have no difficulty in answering, right from the start of the proceedings against him or her. However, complainants sometimes misunderstand the conditions of the offences they are denouncing. The procedure sometimes has the merit of clarifying for them what society considers to be a disturbance of the peace. Because considering oneself a victim is not the same as being a victim under the law, and personal or even collective considerations are not the law. In any case, the Benjamin Mendy case is a reminder that a long and scrupulous procedure is the guarantee of transparent justice. Those who campaign for swift justice think they are campaigning for a firm judicial response. In reality, all they are doing is adding stagnation to stagnation, unaware of the judicial bankruptcy they would like to associate with their own moral bankruptcy.
To read the rest of the article, click here: « Affaire Benjmain MENDY : respect de la procédure et pratique de la patience »