Those arrested during the October 17 rallies filed into the dock at Paris’s Judicial Court on Tuesday, accused of a broad range of offences – from assault against police officers to resisting arrest and handling stolen goods. The courtroom’s charged atmosphere was palpable amid the justice minister’s call for the law to respond with “utmost firmness”.

A tightly packed crowd waits patiently outside a courtroom half an hour before the hearing begins at the Paris Judicial Court. “You’re keen, aren’t you!” a police officer jeers at the front of the queue. “You’re right to be, there won’t be room for everyone.”On Tuesday, October 20, a horde of journalists, students and curious onlookers arrived in the early afternoon to watch the trials of those arrested during the October 17 riots. Proceedings began the previous day, mainly involving participants arrested prior to the action – notably for carrying weapons.

Special arrangements were put in place to cope with the mass influx of defendants; according to the authorities, 2,513 people were taken into police custody on October 17 alone. These involved the use of four – rather than the usual one or two – courtrooms to fast-track trials, as well as “additional screening” upon entry to the courthouse to prevent potential trouble, a police officer explained.

Before the hearings began, a group of representatives from several lawyers' collectives delivered a message to the presiding judge, protesting the handling of the demonstrations and condemning “repression as the sole response”.

“Our role as lawyers is to reject any interference by a minister who might seek to steer the outcome of any ruling in the coming days,” said lawyer Arié Alimi. His indignation follows a call by Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin for “utmost firmness” in response to the events of October 17 – a demand he made during his visit to the Lille Judicial Court, also on Tuesday.

Earlier that morning Darmanin welcomed the imprisonment of 149 rioters and looters, adding that more than 800 people had been “brought before a court” to stand trial. 'These are weapons?

A mask and a smoke canister?' The first defendant enters the courtroom: Victor B, a young lanky figure wearing a t-shirt and black jeans, with a black eye on his left side. The 21-year-old audiovisual production student from Sartrouville in the Paris region is accused of being one of several hundred who helped erect barricades and threw paving stones and other projectiles at police while shouting “ACAB” – an acronym for “All Cops Are Bastards”. In their reports, the arresting officers described him as “very hostile and violent”.

In a weak voice, Victor presents a very different account. He said he came to the demonstrations with his girlfriend, who he lost among the crowds before becoming startled when riot police charged. He said he fell to the ground and was struck on the head repeatedly by police with batons. “The doctor recorded ‘superficial injuries’,” the presiding judge noted.

“I never threw a paving stone or shouted ‘ACAB’”, he insisted. And the barricade? The young man explained he merely moved a wooden plank lying across a burning rubbish bin. Arrested while carrying a pull-pin smoke canister, Victor said his intention was to use it with friends who had brought their camera to make a short film. “Perhaps you should have thought that through a little more,” the judge remarked.

“I would never have thrown it at the riot police,” Victor stammered in response.

His father – also present in the courtroom – is invited to say a few words. “He’s a good lad. I don’t know what he’s doing here. To be honest, I’m quite astounded,” he professes. Victor sheds a tear. For her part, the prosecutor highlighted “the defendant’s preparation and determination”, noting he arrived on the scene masked and carrying a weapon.

Despite his clean criminal record, she seeks a conviction: a five-month prison sentence, with immediate imprisonment.

He was “in the wrong place at the wrong time”, argued his lawyer, who maintains that his client came to demonstrate peacefully. “These constitute weapons? A mask and a smoke grenade? We’d better go and arrest every football supporter!” he exclaimed, before requesting an acquittal. Arrested wearing trainers – security tag still attached Next up are 38-year-old Lamine B and 34-year-old Sofiane R. The two friends are jointly accused of theft and damage to the Louis Vuitton concession in Printemps department store on Boulevard Haussmann. Both were found inside the shop at 7am on October 18 after it was broken into overnight.

In a somewhat curious turn of events, Sofiane was found to be wearing a pair of the luxury brand’s trainers and a black jacket – complete with security tags. He admitted the theft but declined the opportunity to speak.

His friend, however, denies the allegations. Lamine said he wanted to buy clothes for his children and found himself locked inside the store against his will. Unable to leave, he he went to the toilets to smoke before drinking heavily from bottles of whisky and vodka he had brought with him. He said he doesn’t remember much of what happened next. “You bring alcohol with you when shopping for your children?” the judge enquired. “They let us in with them!” he retorted.

Lamine insists that he approached a member of security staff of his own accord early that morning, after having tried – and failed – to reach the police by phone on two occasions.

The judge reviews Lamine’s troubled history: A criminal record tallying 22 offences including violence, theft, resisting arrest, insulting public officials and driving without a licence.

The father of five – soon to be six – acknowledges a small “problem with alcohol”. Above all, he emphasises his new job: he has been working in construction via a temporary employment agency for two months.

Sofiane, who has spent the last year working as a forklift operator at Amazon, also has a criminal record, but insists on having stayed out of trouble since leaving prison in 2018.

The prosecutor describes the two men as having succumbed to the lure of easy gain, “tempted to take advantage of the weekend’s sad events” and requests sentences tailored to each defendant.

In contrast, the defendents' lawyer characterises the episode as a “daydream” involving two people “trying out the clothes and sitting on the armchairs” of the luxury brand. He requests an acquittal. 'I found them on the ground' Defendants appear one after another in the dock. The presiding judge begins each hearing with the same question: "Do you wish to be tried immediately?" Following time spent in custody, defendants must be brought before a judge within 20 hours. Some, however, ask for more time to prepare their defence, including Blairda M, who is accused of acts of violence on the sidelines of the demonstrations. The question then becomes whether the alleged perpetrators should be held in custody or released pending trial.

Blairda’s lawyer argues he has well-established ties to the community and is employed. The prosecutor, meanwhile, requests pretrial detention because of the seriousness of the allegations against him.

Others want to be tried immediately, but their lawyers can’t be found because they are busy in other courtrooms. This is the case for Moustafa D, whose trial finally takes place at the end of the day. The 18-year-old, who is training to become a construction site supervisor and has no previous convictions, is accused of throwing projectiles at police officers, resisting arrest and handling stolen goods. He was caught in possession of seven pairs of sunglasses and a Nike t-shirt.

Moustafa denies any acts violence, saying he struggled during his arrest because he could not breathe, and he maintains he picked up the items without any criminal intent. “I found them on the ground. I didn’t know it was theft,” he says.

“There’s chaos all around you, and these are what you notice?” the judge asks. “You know perfectly well the glasses came from a looted shop,” she continues.

He nods almost imperceptibly. Once again, given the allegations, the prosecutor requests a prison sentence.

It is then time for the judges to deliberate. The courtroom empties. In the corridor, a man paces back and forth. He is looking desperately for his son, a young man who was also arrested over the weekend in the Les Halles district. “A friend of his told me he’d been taken away. I had to keep pestering police stations to find out he would be brought before the court today. I understand that the police get a lot of calls, but still!” he said irritably. A lawyer tries to help him, with little success. Back in the courtroom, the judges return to deliver their decisions.

Victor B, the audiovisual production student, and Moustafa D, the trainee construction site supervisor, are found guilty but are spared imprisonment given their clean criminal records. Instead, they receive six-month and ten-month suspended prison sentences, respectively.

For the incident at Louis Vuitton, Lamine B receives a ten-month prison sentence under a day-release arrangement which the judge noted would enable him ‘to continue working during the day” while spending his nights in prison. His friend Sofiane receives a six-month sentence to be served under electronic tag monitoring. A civil hearing at a later date will determine the financial damages incurred by the French luxury brand.

Finally, Blairda avoids detention pending trial. Released under judicial supervision, he is required to report to the police station every week until his hearing.

This article has been translated from the original in French by Ella Arwyn Jones.