The temporary suspension of police custody for the suspect in the Trappes attack fuelled accusations of “double standards”. But the procedure says something else: medical fitness to be questioned, criminal responsibility at the time of the events, and the terrorist classification of the investigation are three separate questions. Confusing them delivers a political verdict before the experts and judges have done their work.
A medical break, then questioning resumes
After the attack on 23 October in Trappes and La Verrière, which left one person dead and seven injured according to the latest public toll consulted, the suspect was taken into police custody as part of the investigation led by the National Anti-Terrorist Prosecutor’s Office. His condition subsequently led to a period of psychiatric observation.
The update reported by Le Monde on 26 October states that an initial psychiatrist had recommended this observation after acts of self-harm and incoherent remarks. A further examination, carried out on Monday, found no acute decompensation or hallucinatory or delusional activity warranting compulsory hospitalisation. Questioning therefore resumed in the afternoon.
This sequence does not amount to a definitive assessment of the suspect’s responsibility. It addresses an immediate question: does his condition at that moment allow him to be held in police custody and questioned in conditions compatible with his rights and health? According to the anti-terrorist prosecutor, the measure could continue until 00:36 on Thursday 29 October at the latest.
Criminal irresponsibility is decided on the basis of a different question
Criminal responsibility concerns the person’s state at the time of the events, not merely their ability to answer investigators a few days later. Article 122-1 of the Criminal Code distinguishes between two situations.
If a psychological or neuropsychological disorder abolished the person’s capacity to distinguish right from wrong or control their actions at the time of the offence, they are not criminally responsible. If that capacity was merely impaired, they remain liable to punishment; the court must then take this into account when determining the sentence and its regime.
A suspension of police custody therefore proves neither that the person’s capacity to distinguish right from wrong was abolished nor that it was impaired. Conversely, the resumption of questioning does not allow us to conclude that the suspect was fully responsible at the time of the attack. This assessment is based on expert evaluations concerning the period when the events occurred and is then a matter for the judicial authorities.
“The same law” does not mean a comparison has already been established
The controversy arose after the lawyer for Pengo Bossio Wangi’s family denounced different treatment of far-right and jihadist attackers. In an interview broadcast by franceinfo, Jean-François Ricard, National Anti-Terrorist Prosecutor from 2019 to 2024, calls the accusation “completely inaccurate”. He says he encountered comparable situations in jihadist cases involving people whose capacity to distinguish right from wrong was severely impaired.
Legally, the same statutes apply whatever the ideological motive under consideration. But the claim that treatment is identical in practice is broader: a statement by a former prosecutor, even one based on his experience, is no substitute for a documented comparison of rulings, expert evaluations and timeframes across several cases. The sources consulted do not provide such an overall study.
The terrorist classification follows its own course
The prosecutor’s office has maintained the terrorist classifications and an aggravating circumstance of racism. According to the prosecutor, the suspect does not dispute the material facts, but contests their racist nature. The investigation must still compare his statements with the victims who were targeted, reported remarks, weapons, materials seized and other evidence in the case file.
A possible psychological disorder therefore does not automatically end the investigation into a racist or terrorist motive. Likewise, maintaining these classifications at the investigation stage does not prejudge the experts’ conclusions on the suspect’s capacity to distinguish right from wrong.
The useful point is the chronology: first, a doctor assesses whether questioning can take place; experts then shed light on the person’s mental state at the time of the events; the prosecutor’s office proposes classifications; finally, the courts decide on responsibility and the criminal consequences. At this stage, none of these steps on its own allows us to conclude that the suspect has received preferential treatment or has been definitively found not criminally responsible.
