“No scientific truth emerges from this judgment”, says the SNCF lawyer

Nine years after the derailment of a train and the death of seven people, the court of Evry recognized the railway company guilty of homicides and involuntary injuries. She is ordered to pay a fine of 300,000 euros.

Article written by

Posted

Reading time : 2 min.

“There is first of all a satisfaction for the SNCF, it is that the court was able to say with clear words that the company – immediately after the accident – was able to mobilize all the human and financial means to come in support of victims and civil parties”declared Wednesday October 26 Emmanuel Marsigny, lawyer of the SNCF at the microphone of several media including franceinfo, after the court of Evry found the railway company guilty of homicides and involuntary injuries nine years after the castrophe of Brétigny-sur- barley (Essonne).

>>> Brétigny-sur-Orge rail disaster: Guillaume Pepy’s emotion and balancing act during the trial

On July 12, 2013, a train derailment at Brétigny-sur-Orge station killed seven people and caused hundreds of psychological and/or physical injuries. The trial, which began on April 25, lasted eight weeks.

The SNCF was sentenced to a fine of 300,000 euros, heavier than the 225,000 incurred. A sum which remains however less than the 450,000 euros required by the public prosecutor on June 15, points out Maître Marsigny. “I think there may be a cause and effect relationship there.. The lawyer also observes “that after two months of debate, the court rejected the thesis which had been presented by the prosecutor and the investigating magistrates at the end of the instruction.” He is pleased to note that the Evry public prosecutor’s office “dismissed 13 of 15 fouls” accused of the company, “considering that they could have no connection with the accident.”

According to the SNCF lawyer, the court finally came “to the central question” of this case: “The follow-up of this part, a metallurgical defect or a maintenance defect?” Emmanuel Marsigny asserts that“no scientific truth emerges from this judgment” but good “two hypotheses” including one deemed more credible by the court: “The court considered that the hypothesis that this piece was not correctly followed was the most credible”, thus transforming “a hypothesis in a judicial truth”.

The question that now arises for the lawyer is to know “in view of the problem and the stakes of this trial, if it is possible to accept that a hypothesis deemed credible in relation to another – feels that the other is not completely ruled out – is transformed into judicial truth”. The SNCF does not completely exclude, specifies Maître Marsigny, the possibility of appealing the court decision.

Leave a Comment