BERNARD JUDGMENT OF 23 APRIL 1998 4 “Mr Bernard is a gangster (from the English word ‘gang’, which denotes the members of a criminal conspiracy). The conduct of the operation shows (see the case file) (a) that it was very well planned: - customers unaware that staff were being threatened (raiders not masked), - ‘remarkable calm’ of the raiders, who wore gloves and were armed, - booby-trapped bundles not stolen, - cash dispenser loaded for the weekend, - raiders checked that security camera was a dummy. (b) that it was the work of an experienced team: - numerous bank robberies committed according to the same pattern by the same men, - Mr Bernard is practically a weapons expert and has the advantage of the commando training he received when he did his national service in the marines. All Mr Bernard’s major offences (both past and present) fall into the category of organised crime, sharing the following features: - formation of a criminal organisation, - aggravated robberies committed by armed criminals, - targets chosen to bring immediate, large gains. Mr Bernard is not a casual offender, but a real professional. In addition to hold-ups, it seems that his criminal activities have spread into new fields (see the other charges). The back-up provided by his accomplices (the gang) is essential, as they provide both material support, in the form of vehicles, safe houses, alibis etc., and moral support, since the recklessness of each member makes the group bolder and incites the others to repeat their crimes while controlling the risks better. Mr Bernard’s responsibility is aggravated by many factors, for example: - he is a habitual reoffender, - he employs violence, threatening people with weapons, - he acts in association with accomplices… At no time did Article 64 of the Criminal Code apply to him. Mr Bernard is always highly dangerous because of his sang-froid and his criminal determination. He showed his astuteness throughout the investigation – as he did when committing the offences – and during our interview, constantly denying that he took part in them. He cannot be intimidated by the judiciary. His dangerousness even seems to be directed towards the judges investigating his cases. He claims that Mr Roussel and Miss C. Enfoux were appointed to persecute him and makes alarmingly virulent verbal attacks on them. This dangerousness is intensified by his habitual use of firearms.