Credits: Jeanne Menjoulet (Flickr) / Wikimedia Commons — CC BY 2.0.
Between Legal Time Limits and Fast Defamation Procedures, the Case Between Judith Godrèche and Filmmaker Jacques Doillon Highlights a Paradox: the Slowness or Impossibility of Prosecuting Certain Sexual Crimes on One Hand, the Speed of Actions Targeting Victims’ Speech on the Other. How Can Fighting Violence Be Reconciled With Respect for the Presumption of Innocence?
Recent Facts: An Indictment That Reignites the Debate
Actress Judith Godrèche announced on September 10, 2025 that she had been indicted for defamation following a complaint from filmmaker Jacques Doillon, whom she accuses of sexual violence for acts dating back to her adolescence. She laments a “mismatch”: her complaint is blocked by the statute of limitations, while the procedure against her statements is moving quickly. This paradox fuels the unease.
This situation raises two major questions: the lasting impunity for violence against women and the failure to respect the presumption of innocence. Sometimes, that presumption is distorted by public opinion or by the speed of proceedings.
What the Law Says: The Presumption of Innocence, a Cardinal Principle
Under French law, “everyone has the right to respect for the presumption of innocence” (Article 9-1 of the Civil Code). This principle was reinforced by the law of June 15, 2000. It guarantees that no one is guilty until a final decision has declared them so. It applies to authorities, the media, and any public expression; one must not confuse: defamation (attributing a fact) vs. insult (offensive expression without a factual claim).
The balance point: protect the rights of the person accused and enable victims to testify and access justice.
Defamation, “Direct Summons,” and Timing: Why Does It Move Fast?
Press offenses include defamation. Defamation is defined as an allegation or imputation of a fact that harms someone’s honor. These are governed by the law of July 29, 1881. Complaints follow a specific procedure and short time limits:
The direct summons allows a person who considers themselves defamed to bring a defamation complaint. Thus, they can quickly seize the court.
- The statute of limitations is 3 months (or 1 year in some cases).
Consequence: a defamation complaint progresses quickly, while a complaint for old sexual violence remains blocked by the statute of limitations. Result: victims’ statements end up being judged, while the alleged acts will never be adjudicated.
Sexual Violence and Statutes of Limitations: Reforms and Their Limits
Since 2018, the limitation period for sexual crimes against minors has been extended to 30 years after reaching majority. In 2021, the framework was strengthened (definition of incest, increased protection for minors). These advances respond to the reality of late disclosures.
But old acts, from the 1980s–1990s, often remain time-barred. Several avenues are being discussed:
- Rolling limitation mechanisms,
- aligning civil and criminal deadlines,
- better preservation of evidence,
- early support for victims.
A “Long Impunity”: Structural Causes
Several obstacles explain the impression of impunity:
- Time: weakened evidence, witnesses gone.
- Power dynamics: dependency in film or sports.
- Personal cost: fear, stigma, judicial exhaustion.
- The press framework: the 1881 law protects reputation and can be turned against victims’ speech.
Understanding Without Opposing
The debate sometimes pits two imperatives: believe victims and respect the presumption of innocence. They are compatible if one distinguishes:
- Reception: listen without disqualifying.
- Reporting: report with caution (“she accuses,” “he contests”).
- Justice: the only authority entitled to decide.
A Mirror of French Contradictions
Judith Godrèche’s recent story sheds light on the contradictions of the French system. On one hand, victims denounce impunity reinforced by statutes of limitations. On the other, the accused assert their presumption of innocence. Occasionally, that presumption is perceived as threatened by the media tribunal. It is also threatened on social networks, notably by online defamation.
The balance remains fragile: protect victims’ speech without smothering it, respect the fundamental rights of the accused without turning them into a shield for impunity. The Godrèche-Doillon case acts as a mirror of our democracy: how to deliver justice without betraying either victims or the rule of law.