France: Court refuses to label poisoning of Jewish family as antisemitic
At trial, the defendant characterized the nanny's remarks as “hateful” but denied that her actions were motivated by racism or antisemitism.
The public prosecutor’s office in Nanterre, France has filed an appeal against a December 18 ruling by a criminal court in the case of a 42-year-old Algerian nanny convicted of poisoning the Jewish family she worked for, after the court declined to recognize an antisemitic motive in the crime.
The case dates back to January 2024 in Levallois-Perret, west of Paris, where the nanny deliberately poured cleaning products into several bottles of alcohol belonging to the parents of the children in her care.
The contaminated alcohol caused the couple to fall ill.
The court sentenced the woman to three years in prison, including two and a half years to be served, and ordered a five-year ban from French territory. She was also convicted of using forged documents after authorities discovered a fake Belgian identity card in her possession.
Despite requests from prosecutors, the court rejected the aggravating circumstance of antisemitism.
Investigators cited statements made by the defendant during a search, in which she reportedly said she targeted her employers because they “have money and power” and that she “should never have worked for a Jewish woman.” At trial, the defendant later characterized those remarks as “hateful” but denied that her actions were motivated by racism or antisemitism.
In its ruling, the court said the statements could not be used to establish an antisemitic motive, noting they were made without a lawyer present. The judges nonetheless stressed the gravity of the offense, describing it as a serious breach of trust and pointing to what they called the defendant’s inconsistent behavior throughout the proceedings.
Lawyers for the family, Patrick Klugman and Sacha Ghozlan, strongly criticized the verdict, arguing that antisemitism was central to the case and must be explicitly recognized. They said the appeal is necessary to “clearly name what happened.”
The prosecutor’s appeal could result in a reassessment of the charges and a more severe legal classification of the offense.