The refusal to communicate the unlock code of the home screen of a mobile phone to the judicial authorities can constitute a crime, the Court of Cassation ruled on Monday, November 7, thus confirming its jurisprudence on the matter.
This delicate issue related to cryptology and mobile phones had been examined by the full Court of Cassation, its most solemn formation, after the Douai Court of Appeal had issued a decision contrary to the jurisprudence of the High Court of Cassation.
A narcotics affair
The case originated in a narcotics file: a man arrested in possession of cannabis refused, while in police custody, to give the passwords to his two mobile phones.
He is returned to the correctional facility for this possession of narcotics but also for refusing to hand over the “secret convention to decipher a cryptology medium” that was probably used to commit this crime, a crime punishable by three years in prison.
The Criminal Court of Lille, then the Court of Appeal of Douai, acquitted him of this last crime, considering that the code was not a “decryption agreement” because it was not used to decrypt data but only to unlock a home screen.
Apprehended for the first time, the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation censures the decision of the appeal court in 2020, considering that it had a “general and erroneous” reasoning.
“Secret Decryption Convention”
The case is sent back to the Douai Court of Appeal, which refuses to follow this jurisprudence and upholds the acquittal decision. Following an appeal by the prosecution, it was in a plenary meeting that the Court of Cassation re-examined this issue on October 14.
The highest court of the Judicial Power considered that when a mobile phone was equipped with a “cryptology means”, that is, a password, its owner was obliged to deliver the unlock code to the investigators.
By objecting, he commits the crime of “refusal to deliver a secret decryption convention.” Therefore, the Court of Cassation annulled the judgment of the Douai Court of Appeal and referred the case to the Paris Court of Appeal for the defendant to be retried.
Source: BFM TV
