What the Doillon case reveals about France’s justice and victims’ speech

Judith Godrèche broke her silence in 2024, accusing Jacques Doillon and Benoît Jacquot of sexual violence. Her complaints were met with the statute of limitations, leaving the old incidents beyond the reach of criminal prosecution. Meanwhile, a defamation lawsuit against her progressed quickly. This contrast highlights the asymmetry felt by many victims.

Between judicial prescription and rapid defamation procedures, the case opposing Judith Godrèche to filmmaker Jacques Doillon highlights a paradox: the slowness or impossibility of judging certain sexual crimes on one side, and the swiftness of actions targeting the victims’ speech on the other. How to reconcile the fight against violence with respect for the presumption of innocence?

Recent events: an indictment that reignites the debate

Actress Judith Godrèche announced on September 10, 2025, that she was indicted for defamation following a complaint by filmmaker Jacques Doillon, whom she accuses of sexual violence for acts dating back to her adolescence. She laments a "discrepancy": her complaint is hindered by prescription, while the procedure for her statements progresses quickly. This paradox fuels discomfort.

This situation raises two major questions: the enduring impunity of violence against women and the non-respect of the presumption of innocence. Sometimes, this presumption is distorted by public opinion or the speed of procedures.

His public revelations have sparked a debate about the voice of victims. They also raise the question of respecting the presumption of innocence.
His public revelations have sparked a debate about the voice of victims. They also raise the question of respecting the presumption of innocence.

What the law says: the presumption of innocence, a cardinal principle

In French law, "everyone has the right to respect for the presumption of innocence" (Article 9-1 of the Civil Code). This principle is reinforced by the law of June 15, 2000. It guarantees that no one is guilty until a final decision declares them so. It is imposed on authorities, media, and any public expression, not to be confused: defamation (imputation of a fact) vs insult (outrageous expression without fact).

Balance point: protect the rights of the accused and allow victims to testify and seek justice.

In February 2024, the directors in question were interviewed by the Child Protection Brigade. The accusations were related to events from the actress's youth. However, the age of the incidents makes any criminal trial unlikely. The indictment for defamation then becomes the only visible trial.
In February 2024, the directors in question were interviewed by the Child Protection Brigade. The accusations were related to events from the actress’s youth. However, the age of the incidents makes any criminal trial unlikely. The indictment for defamation then becomes the only visible trial.

Defamation, "direct citation," and temporality: why does it go fast?

Press offenses include defamation. It is defined as the allegation or imputation of a fact that harms honor. They are governed by the law of July 29, 1881. The complaint follows a specific procedure and short deadlines:

Direct citation allows the person who considers themselves defamed to file a complaint for defamation. Thus, they can quickly bring the matter to 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 prescription. Result: the victims’ speech is judged, while the reported facts will never be.

The law protects the presumption of innocence while regulating freedom of expression. Public defamation follows a fast-track procedure, sometimes reinforcing the imbalance. The 2018 and 2021 reforms extended the statute of limitations, but too late. The Godrèche-Doillon case reveals the tensions between justice, memory, and speech.
The law protects the presumption of innocence while regulating freedom of expression. Public defamation follows a fast-track procedure, sometimes reinforcing the imbalance. The 2018 and 2021 reforms extended the statute of limitations, but too late. The Godrèche-Doillon case reveals the tensions between justice, memory, and speech.

Sexual violence and prescription: reforms and their limits

Since 2018, the statute of limitations for sexual crimes against minors has been extended to 30 years after reaching adulthood. In 2021, the arsenal was strengthened (definition of incest, increased protection for minors). These advances respond to the reality of late revelations.

But old facts, from the 1980s-1990s, often remain prescribed. Some avenues are being discussed:

  • Sliding prescription mechanisms,
  • alignment of 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, missing witnesses.
  • Authority relationships: dependency in cinema or sports.
  • Personal cost: fear, stigmatization, judicial exhaustion.
  • Press framework: the 1881 law protects reputation and can turn against the victims’ speech.

Understanding without opposing

The debate sometimes opposes two injunctions: believing the victims and respecting the presumption of innocence. They are compatible if we distinguish:

  1. Reception: listen without disqualifying.
  2. Information: report with caution ("she accuses," "he contests").
  3. Justice: the only one authorized to decide.

A mirror of French contradictions

The recent story of Judith Godrèche sheds light on the contradictions of the French system. On one side, victims denounce impunity reinforced by prescription. On the other side, the accused claim their presumption of innocence. Occasionally, it is perceived as threatened by the media tribunal. Moreover, it is also threatened on social networks, notably by online defamation.

The balance remains fragile: protecting the victims’ speech without stifling it, respecting the fundamental rights of the accused without making it a shield of impunity. The Godrèche-Doillon case acts as a mirror of our democracy: how to deliver justice without betraying either the victims or the rule of law.

This article was written by Émilie Schwartz.