Nuñez says the rebuttable presumption would preserve judicial investigation
Laurent NuñezFrench minister of the interior
Nuñez supported the bill and argued that its rebuttable presumption would not prevent prosecutors from investigating or detaining an officer when the firearm-use conditions appeared not to be met.
Responding to
The bill creates a simple, rebuttable presumption and does not prevent judicial investigations or prosecutors from treating an officer as a suspect when the statutory firearm-use conditions appear not to have been met.
“This bill provides only for a simple presumption (it is written in black and white), which can be lifted at any time. I heard it said earlier that one would have to wait for the judgment. That is not the case: any prosecutor will be able to place a police officer or gendarme in custody if he considers that the weapon was not used within the framework provided by Article 435-1 of the Internal Security Code. (Translated from French. Original: Cette proposition de loi ne prévoit qu’une présomption simple – c’est écrit noir sur blanc –, qui peut être levée à tout moment. J’ai entendu dire tout à l’heure qu’il faudrait attendre le jugement. Ce n’est pas le cas : n’importe quel procureur pourra placer en garde à vue un policier ou un gendarme s’il considère que l’usage de l’arme n’a pas été fait dans le cadre prévu par l’article 435-1 du code de la sécurité intérieure.)”
Original text
Other statements by Laurent Nuñez in this case
- Nuñez backs a rebuttable presumption while proposing a rewriteEarlier: Defended or excused
- Nuñez rejects the claim that the firearms bill creates a license to killLater: Defended or excused
Where this statement fits
Should France presume police and gendarmes acted lawfully when using firearms?
A bill filed by French lawmaker Éric Pauget and rewritten by the government would create a rebuttable presumption that national police officers and gendarmes who use firearms acted within an authorized statutory circumstance and complied with requirements of absolute necessity and strict proportionality. The National Assembly adopted the text on July 7, 2026, and sent it to the Senate. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez and police-union supporters say the measure would protect officers without ending judicial review; the Defender of Rights, a UN special rapporteur and human-rights groups argue that it could weaken investigations, victims’ remedies and accountability for lethal force.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
Official verbatim debate record. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez supported the bill, described the presumption as rebuttable, said firearm incidents would continue to trigger judicial investigations and said prosecutors could still place an officer in custody when the statutory conditions appeared not to be met.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Assembly member Sabrina Sebaihi argued that the bill would invert the burden of proof, strengthen impunity and endanger young people. Nuñez responded during questions to the government before the chamber resumed detailed consideration of the bill.
After the quotation
Nuñez continued that police and gendarmes are heavily monitored, must justify force and generally receive a review of whether an intervention was proportionate. He later rejected critics’ use of cases in which officers had been cleared.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
On the proposed statutory presumption favoring lawful firearm use, Nuñez expressly supports the bill and argues that the measure is limited and compatible with prosecutorial oversight. That is a defense of the policy, not merely a challenge to an opponent’s terminology.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseLDH says the police firearm presumption would obstruct investigations of shootings
Ligue des droits de l'Homme
“Yet establishing a presumption that shootings are lawful would amount to accepting from the outset that the use of the weapon was lawful, and therefore to slowing down, or even preventing, investigations, with the possible consequence that unjustified uses escape any sanction. As a result, victims would be deprived of any hope that the truth would come out, and all the current failings would be legitimized. (Translated from French. Original: Or l’instauration d’une présomption de légalité des tirs reviendrait à admettre d’emblée la conformité de l’usage de l’arme et donc de freiner, voire d’empêcher, la réalisation d’investigations, avec pour conséquence possible que des utilisations injustifiées échappent à toute sanction. Dès lors, les victimes seraient privées de toute espérance quant à la manifestation de la vérité et tous les dysfonctionnements actuels seraient légitimés.)”Read statement
Stéphane Peu opposes France's firearm-use presumption
“an inequality before the law (Translated from French. Original: une inégalité devant la loi)”Read statement
Stella Dupont opposes France's firearm-use presumption
“a red line (Translated from French. Original: une ligne rouge)”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Nuñez says the rebuttable presumption would preserve judicial investigation
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/1376-nu%C3%B1ez-supported-the-bill-and-argued-that-its
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Nuñez says the rebuttable presumption would preserve judicial investigation". First published: 2026-09-22. Last updated: 2026-10-07. https://disputeindex.com/events/1376-nu%C3%B1ez-supported-the-bill-and-argued-that-its