ChristiaanJ is correct. Its not a case of it being corrupt - quite the reverse - its the way its set up to prevent it being corrupt. Its the simple fact that in French transport accidents the 'gouvenment' order a 'lock-down' of information, communications, and procedures under a legal system that grinds its way thoroughly through to a conclusion over as long as a decade. Everything becomes 'sub judicae'. You can't talk to witnesses, release privileged information relevant to probable cause etc. into the public domain. If the system in the US was set up this way (thankfully its not) I can't imagine you would get any more information or greater transparency either. If you ask a French person why they do it like this (as I have) they say its to get at the truth without vested interests influencing the result. The judiciary, they maintain, is above this and not subject to influence.
The system ensnares anyone and everyone who could possibly have had anything to do with it, combs through the evidence piece by piece, releasing people as it becomes clear they had no role in the accident or have no case to answer, as Christiaan says. You saw this in the Spanair case: the Spanish system is similar. It applies to any transport accident in France: I had a friend who was caught up in the Erika oil spill case (the Erika was chartered by the French oil company Total and sank due to structural failure off the Galician (Spanish) coast causing massive pollution in 1999). The last "suspect under examination" was released from investigation with the publication of the report on January 16th this year.
Now you can argue the benefits or lack of, but my view is the system all about apportioning blame and secondarily about preventing a recurrance. My friend was lucky - he was 'released' by the juge d'instruction after about five years. During this time he had to go before madame juge about every six months or so and be asked questions over interrogation sessions lasting sometimes all day. It destroyed his career, threatened his family life, and came close to breaking him as a person. In fact, during the incident, as an experienced mariner and ships engineer, all he had tried to do was offer advice. Which then of course was used against him.
The joke of this all was that the finding, after the ten years: the ship sank from structural failure. Total was found not guilty but was fined and found reckless over a voluntary procedure that they had put in place some years earlier to do additional vetting of a vessel they chartered. Huh? Yes, thats right. They hadn't broken the law, just hadnt, according to the juge, followed their own voluntary procedures over and above the law. So they were guilty.
I think its that last bit that made me finally realise that the French system was probably not the best way as in that case at least, it discouraged companies taking additional responsibility.
Pinkman
Last edited by Pinkman; 27th Dec 2008 at 16:43.