Parker ordered to stand trial in France (Business Week)

[Robin Garr]

Wine critic Parker ordered to trial in France

By PIERRE-ANTOINE SOUCHARD
PARIS

Influential U.S. wine critic Robert M. Parker has been ordered to stand trial in France next month for allegedly defaming a former assistant, a judicial official said Friday.

The case centers on former assistant Hanna Agostini who co-authored a book in France with a title that translates as "Robert Parker: Anatomy of a Myth."

Agostini herself faces preliminary charges in Bordeaux involving alleged forgery in a wine-trafficking affair centering on Belgian wine trader Geens. She denies the allegations.

The judicial official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, said that Parker was ordered last month to stand trial on July 10 for writing on his Internet site that Agostini "could end up stagnating in prison," and for allegedly misrepresenting the penalties that she faces in that case.

The comment from Parker is no longer on the Web site.

For the full story, click to Business Week online ...
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financia ... KIEI80.htm

An interesting week for the man.

I have a question that has nothing to do with Robert Parker.

Can a US citizen simply ignore an order to stand trial in France (or any other country)?

I suppose if you ignore it you probably don't want to travel there in the future but that's another issue.

[Robin Garr]

Good questions, Tom. I'm certainly not a lawyer, but it's my guess that for most crimes all the other country's court could do is shower you and your own lawyers with paperwork and unenforceable orders, although I'm not clear how extradition works and whether American law would permit a citizen to be extradited for less than a major crime. Maybe one of the lawyers among us could tell.

I think failure to appear could cause real problems for Parker both because he essentially needs to go there on his business and has some business presence there. He certainly couldn't get off the plane at Charles de Gaulle (or maybe any EU airport) without his passport flagging the issue.

I have a question that has nothing to do with Robert Parker.

Can a US citizen simply ignore an order to stand trial in France (or any other country)?

I suppose if you ignore it you probably don't want to travel there in the future but that's another issue.

Good questions, Tom. I'm certainly not a lawyer, but it's my guess that for most crimes all the other country's court could do is shower you and your own lawyers with paperwork and unenforceable orders, although I'm not clear how extradition works and whether American law would permit a citizen to be extradited for less than a major crime. Maybe one of the lawyers among us could tell.

If French law is anything like U.S. (and I'm not saying it is), slander is a civil action and not a crime. Hence, extradition does not lie. There is a rather arcane procedure for civil sevice that can be performed but it is cumbersome and seldom successful.

I think failure to appear could cause real problems for Parker both because he essentially needs to go there on his business and has some business presence there. He certainly couldn't get off the plane at Charles de Gaulle (or maybe any EU airport) without his passport flagging the issue.

Therein lies the rub.
Best, Jim

Good questions, Tom. I'm certainly not a lawyer, but it's my guess that for most crimes all the other country's court could do is shower you and your own lawyers with paperwork and unenforceable orders, although I'm not clear how extradition works and whether American law would permit a citizen to be extradited for less than a major crime. Maybe one of the lawyers among us could tell.

If French law is anything like U.S. (and I'm not saying it is), slander is a civil action and not a crime. Hence, extradition does not lie. There is a rather arcane procedure for civil sevice that can be performed but it is cumbersome and seldom successful.

I think failure to appear could cause real problems for Parker both because he essentially needs to go there on his business and has some business presence there. He certainly couldn't get off the plane at Charles de Gaulle (or maybe any EU airport) without his passport flagging the issue.

Therein lies the rub.
Best, Jim

That away to go Jim. I'm always impressed with a lawyer who quotes Shakespeare. My sister the legal beagle says she added an extra 20 bucks per hour to her fees when using quotes from prestigious authors.

Another interesting aspect is that he is to be tried in France for remarks published on a foreign website in a foreign language. Does that mean that in theory any of us could be sued for deemed OTT comments here about a vigneron or a wine?

This is a civil case.

It is about a legal fine point, but many people have obviously extrapolated a great many things not actually involved in the court case....

Unless I am mistaken, Parker, in criticizing his former assistant, simply said that she was, if found guilty, subject to a prison sentence much greater than she acutally is.
That is all!

Obviously, this has been blown out of all proportion.

There is no need for Parker to attend the hearing. However, he must be represented by legal council in order to be on good terms with the French authorities.
(Had he no strong links with France, he could probably just ignore the whole thing with impunity).

Let us not forget that the woman who is taking him to court is embroiled in a court case of her own involving fraud and the use of false documents (Wine Advocate letterpaper).

As for Tim's question, the Internet is not a lawless place. But the law concerning it is evolving and difficult to apprehend. Because you publish libel in one country does not exempt you from prosecution in another. Logically speaking, the injured party should sue in the country where the Web site is hosted. If this is not the case, then the legal grounds are certainly beyond my understanding.

Best regards,
Alex R.



Best regards,
Alex R.

Also worth keeping in mind that in many countries (including France) by not "showing up" in either a criminal or civil offense one can be found guilty in absentia. Not showing up simply leaves all of the testimony in the hands of the suing party and thus allows no defense.

Best
Rogov

Rogov,

True enough.

But how do you enforce the application of a court decision in another country?

In other words, if we are talking about big bucks, you can indeed sue in the other country to obtain satisfaction.
However, it's exactly like taking debtors to court. The amount of money involved determines whether or not it is worthwhile to take legal action.
It would have to be a pretty big amount to warrant taking someone to court in America!
Somehow, I don't think the finiancial stakes are anywhere near that threshold in the Parker case.

Alex

Alex, Hi....

Ye be right, but if a court decision has been handed down and one arrives in the country of jurisdiction (or in some cases in any EU member nation) one can be arrested, not for not having paid the fine but for being in contempt of court for not having paid it.

Now we all know that the Magna Carta did away with debtors' prison, but one can be jailed for contempt, even in a civil case,for not following the instructions of the court, even if that deciison was handed down in absentia.

In other words - don't diddle with the French courts unless you want an extended visit to the holding cells at Vincennes. I understand they do supply wine with lunch and dinner but somehow doubt that most wine lovers will appreciate those wines very much.

Best
Rogov

Yes indeed it's also a good reminder for us to write with common sense here. In extreme cases (IIRC) both the author and the forum owner (Robin) could be held liable for statements made here (just as Parker is being for something allegedly posted by him on his own forum).

The reality I'm sure cuts us quite a bit of slack, but as a reminder, this court case is useful (though being a pleasant bunch of folks, there's not really much reminding needed )

regards

Ian

All,

Thanks for all the responses and for not turning this into another tedious "Parker thread".

It sounds like this could be ignored except that in this case Mr. Parker has business interests in France and so he probably needs to hire attorneys to represent him in this case (although he may not need to show up) so that he doesn't end up having issues the next time he travels to France.

Its interesting to consider that his business MAY actually benefit from him never going to France. If he purchased all his Bordeaux in the US and never traveled to France he might avoid all the nonsense that's been discussed here for the last month. Of course, he couldn't help his customers with Bordeuax futures buying decisions if he did that.

Tom, Hi...

Have to disagree. No critic who writes about Bordeaux in detail (or any other area) can possibly avoid at least once or twice annual trips to that area (assuming that they do not reside there). Think, for example, of barrel tastings, pre-release tastings, vertical tastings, horizontal tastings and yes, re-tastings.

Best
Rogov

As Alex said, this is a civil suit for libel, not a criminal action. Parker need only have lawyers appear on his behalf. He may have to file a deposition, but it's unlikely that either party will attend the proceedings in person. It seems to me that Ms. Agostini will have her work cut out for her proving a case.

I think the worst that would happen if Mr. Parker completely ignored this is that the court would find a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff and would grant her appropriate monetary damages. I'd be extremely surprised if Parker chose to take that route.

-Paul W.

Paul
Presumably not proving what was written (which although AFAIK, has since been removed - but you'd bet she'd have copies), but that there is any genuine sense of loss from those words?
regards
Ian

Paul
Presumably not proving what was written (which although AFAIK, has since been removed - but you'd bet she'd have copies), but that there is any genuine sense of loss from those words?
regards
Ian

I wonder how she translates the words into French. They may sound much worse.

Tom, as Shakespeare would have said, "It depends."

Extradition is the technical word, by which one state (the U.S.) would deliver up the defendant to the other state (France). Whether extradition would lie depends in all cases on the treaty between the two states. My assumption is that Parker is not accused of a crime in this case, so that extradition is not an appropriate remedy.

Folks with international interests, however, ignore civil proceedings at their peril. For example, I had a client who was accused of possessing drugs in France, was able to win his freedom after cooling his heels for a few weeks in jail (the drugs belonged to a hitchhiker he picked up) but it was his burden of proof to show innocence.

The government then brought a civil action for damages -- I forget what the exact amount was -- but it was small enough that he decided not to fight it.

Several years later he applied to a Swiss cooking school for chef training. The Swiss government refused to give him a student's permit, not because of the drug charge, but because he did not answer the civil action. We tried unsuccessfully for two years to get the Swiss to forget about the "insult" -- he even paid the French judgment in full with interest -- all to no avail.

My advice would be for any one as well placed as Parker and with significant interests in the wine world to defend the matter with competent counsel. It is almost impossible to antcipate all the complications that might arise from not doing so.

Excellent question, Tom. Thanks. I haven't worried about this sort of issue for a long time. Best, Bob

I could be wrong here. But I don't believe this is a civil court case. I believe he already had the civil case in which he had to pay a fine.

I believe this is criminal court. But one in which he doesn't need to attend. His lawyer will attend instead or so I believe.

The interesting trial will be when Hanna herself goes on trial for all of her charges. Her husband is a well known and respected lawyer. Incidentally, he was also Robert Parker's lawyer at one point.

Mark

Mark, Hi...

Indeed you are correct. This is a criminal libel case. Some details at http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=6984

Best
Rogov

How does French law define "criminal libel"?

-Paul W.

Paul, I don't have the time or interest to research this carefully; a recent "Guardian" article gives a few hints -- modest financial penalties if proven, no prison [undoubtedly barring extradition], quick process. Take a look at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/ap ... publishing

for some of the practical legal points. Extract:

Provided that the claimant is not looking for substantial damages, the French law of criminal libel may offer an attractive alternative to the lengthy, expensive trials of the English system.

The outcome that French criminal libel law offers is that the record be set straight within months, with the defamer getting a criminal record, and being obliged to publish a prompt and appropriate retraction. A spokesman for the Barclays has indicated that the failure of the Times to print a prominent retraction following the "droit de réponse" demand filed in the French courts has instigated this further action.

Defendants get only three months' notice to appear before a tribunal. They have just 10 days from receipt of the summons to file evidence in their defence if they wish to assert that the defamatory statement was true. They must also provide a list of witnesses they wish to call at the hearing. Evidence not submitted within the 10-day period will not be admitted, and any witnesses not on the list will not be heard. Although adjournments are not uncommon, they are also limited to three months. Only rarely will a case be adjourned more than once. Hearings last less than a day, sometimes taking no more than an hour.

Defendants must either prove that the statement in question was true, or that it was not defamatory, or that even if defamatory it was intended in good faith. If they fail, they will be liable to the maximum fine of €12,000. Claimants may also seek civil damages before the criminal court. It is customary to ask for €1, as the real purpose of the action is to protect one's reputation. Higher civil damages can be awarded by the court, but these are rare and usually no more than a few thousand euros.

The French, unlike the English, assume everyone has a reputation that deserves protection and which would be harmed by defamatory remarks. The claimant does not need to have any connection whatsoever with France - it is sufficient that the offending article was published in France.

Costs will partially follow the decision, but the risk is low as this swift justice is relatively cheap, cost awards of more than €3,000 are rare, and legal expenses of either party rarely exceed €10,000.



Fun issue; at a long remove, this looks to me like litigant jockeying in a fairly complex case.

Yes indeed it's also a good reminder for us to write with common sense here.

I always try to remember to make my most scurrilous posts under Jenise's name...

I believe it's the case in the US that only the state can initiate a criminal action in the courts. Private parties may file a criminal complaint with the police, but only a state or federal attorney can bring the case to court (criminal actions are always "the people vs. xxx"). I know that in Britain the courts allow private criminal suits (although they are rare). Is this true in France as well, or is this action against Parker being brought by a state prosecutor?

The other significant difference in the French system is that, in a criminal trial, the defendant is considered guilty until proven innocent--the exact opposite of the situation in the English and US judicial systems.

Does the US have the concept of criminal libel, or is libel solely a civil matter?

-Paul W.