Introduction: Multiple fines that disproportionately target poor racialized communities

Part of a pattern of discriminatory harassment by law enforcement, discriminatory and abusive fines for minor offenses are a rapidly growing problem in France. Police target young men and children, mostly Black and North African, in neighborhoods labeled ‘sensitive urban areas’ (quartiers populaires), a euphemism for those areas with a high concentration of low-income visible minority families.

Criminalization of Poverty

Most reported fines are for either: a) public order related offenses such as: “pouring unsanitary liquids” (urinating, spitting); depositing garbage (cigarettes, tissues, papers); noise (speaking, whistling); and smoking where it's forbidden; or b) circulation offenses, often relating to scooters, such as: not wearing a seatbelt; not displaying an insurance certificate; lacking an air quality certificate; absence of rearview mirror; driving without gloves; bothersome parking; absence of a yellow vest; lack of mastery of the vehicle; faulty light; etc. These are often ‘class 3’ infractions, each sanctioned with a 68 euro fine that can increase to 180 euros after penalties for late payment.

What may appear as a relatively low penalty is generally multiplied manifold as those targeted often receive repeat fines. Sometimes they receive numerous fines at the same time (for example a ‘trio’ consisting of simultaneously making noise, pouring unsanitary liquids, and depositing garbage) or consecutively in the course of a day or very short period of time. Multiple fines quickly add up. Those targeted frequently describe owing several thousand euros and in the worst cases even reaching over twenty thousand, leading to large debts with significant consequences.¹ (see discussion below)

In a 2022 opinion commenting on a legislative proposal to extend fines to a list of minor crimes, the French Human Rights Defender (DDD) commented:

"Over the past two years or so, the Human Rights Defender has been contacted or alerted on numerous occasions about a problem that seems to be developing, known as multiple or repeated fines. In this case, a person is ticketed numerous times, with multiple concomitant fines issued each time (up to 8 at once), and the tickets are repeated.

The fines can quickly become impossible to pay, as their amount is out of all proportion to the often low or modest income of the person or family concerned. The sheer volume of tickets received also makes it almost impossible to appeal them and to follow up the appeal procedure."²

MCDS became aware of these practices due to young men arriving at its community legal aid center with bags full of fines in 2017. Mothers also began asking for advice on what to do about these fines that they had no means to pay. What were once exceptional and isolated occurrences have become routine and widespread over the last years.

Consequences for people

In a significant number of cases documented by (RE)Claim and MCDS, the children and young men fined deny having committed the alleged offenses or, in some cases, even having been present at the relevant time, date and place. Visible minority boys and young men in specific “quartiers populaires” are also disproportionately targeted for minor infractions that are not or far less frequently applied against other parts of the population. These repeat fines are part of a pattern of harassment that appears designed to evict those considered to be “undesirables” from public spaces.³ As such, they are a recent addition to discriminatory identity check, frisk and search practices, illegal police detention, and other forms of verbal and physical abuse that make up this harassment.⁴

These fines can create serious debts, contributing to the impoverishment of families already struggling to make ends meet. Families are obliged to make impossible choices between paying the fines or basic bills for housing and food, a situation that can lead to eviction from homes. Non-payment can also result in the public treasury seizing bank accounts, salary, or moveable property (such as furniture or a vehicle). If unpaid, debts can burden families for years, and even be transmitted as part of a person’s estate.⁵

A recent academic study on this problem notes that:

“It is not only those fined that are impacted, but their entire family, who, in most cases, are already in vulnerable situations and have low incomes . . . the sums that need to be paid prevent or delay other necessary family expenses. The inability of families to pay the fines or their need to solve other more immediate problems, results in fines often remaining unpaid and the fine debts to increase significantly due to late penalties. In addition to the insolvency of those that receive multiple fines, there is also a saturation effect caused by the sheer volume of fines received.”⁶

Procedural Issues

This situation is worsened by the failure of the law to protect people from these practices; the existing appeal procedure is ineffective and inefficient. While, in theory, fines may be appealed, chances of success are generally slim and near impossible in situations of multiple fines that (RE)Claim and MCDS have documented. Persons fined are required to demonstrate that they did not commit the alleged offense in a procedure in which the written record of the fine or report by the fining officer is considered to constitute proof of the act unless the complainant can bring proof of the contrary, for instance through witness testimonies or written documents. In essence, fines reverse the usual rule of “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty based on a police report unless you can bring convincing evidence of your innocence”. Further jeopardizing chances of a successful appeal, fines are frequently only notified weeks or months after the alleged incidents (rather than on the spot), often without any contact with police officers, making it especially difficult to collect evidence that contradicts the police account. There is also a strong financial disincentive to challenging fines: a complaint does not suspend penalties for non-payment that are levied after 45 days. This means that complaints are usually both unsuccessful and costly.

The Human Rights Defender emphasized that this procedure “derogates from a number of principles of criminal law and criminal procedural law, in particular respect for the presumption of innocence, the adversarial principle and defense rights, the principle of individualization of penalties and, lastly, the right of access to a judge. These derogations from the main principles of criminal law and procedural law are only permissible insofar as they relate to minor offenses, with light penalties, and which can be established on a purely material basis.”⁷

Given the disproportionate targeting of poor racialized populations, the considerable sums owed due to multiple fines and the resulting indebtedness, these sanctions cannot be considered as light. Criminal law and procedural guarantees should therefore apply.

Conclusion

The problem of discriminatory and abusive fines is set to worsen exponentially in the years to come if current trends are not reversed. A 2019 Law on reform of the judicial system, presented as simplifying the criminal procedure, introduced a number of new fixed penalty criminal fines (Amendes Forfaitaires Délictuelles) including “illegal occupation of common areas of buildings”, a fine announced as targeting “lookouts” (guetteurs) in the drug trade, and a fine for use of narcotics.⁸ These will easily lend themselves to abuse, especially against young racialized men without any connection to drugs or the drug trade. These fines also lead to a criminal record and repeat offenses may be punished with imprisonment.⁹