yoga-mahendra
A Paris court has convicted six people of involuntary homicide for their roles in the deadliest small-boat disaster ever recorded in the English Channel, handing down prison sentences of between six and 10 years. The verdict, delivered at the close of a four-week trial, marks the first time French judges have held traffickers criminally responsible for mass drowning in the Channel. Seven other defendants received lighter sentences of up to four years, while one person was acquitted entirely.
The tragedy unfolded in the early hours of 24 November 2021, when an inflatable dinghy carrying dozens of migrants sank after sending distress calls to both French and British coastguard authorities. Thirty-one people died, among them a seven-year-old child. The victims were predominantly Iraqi Kurds, but also included Afghans, Egyptians and Iranian Kurds. Only two men survived the sinking.
According to the charge sheet, the migrants had set off from the northern French coast in a vessel described as "of poor quality, uncertified, unsuitable for navigation at sea, overloaded, and without correct life jackets." The court heard that the boat was fundamentally unfit for the crossing, lacking even basic safety equipment that might have saved lives when it went down.
Investigators established that the convicted men belonged to two distinct trafficking networks — one Iraqi Kurdish and the other Afghan — that had joined forces to organise the journey and shepherd migrants to the departure point. Police used mobile phone tracking to identify members of both groups, piecing together the logistics of an operation that spanned multiple countries.
The alleged leader of the Iraqi Kurdish network, identified only as Bashdar, was not among the defendants. He is currently in custody in Iraq. His close associate, Harem Ahmed Abawaker, received an eight-year prison term. The heaviest sentence — 10 years — was imposed on Obaidullah Maroofkhel, who ran the Afghan network and was tried in absentia alongside one other defendant.
Most of the 14 people originally charged were Afghans or Iraqi Kurds. All but one of the defendants appeared at trial as free men, meaning the court issued six arrest warrants following the verdict to ensure those sentenced would be taken into custody. The structure of the trial reflected the fragmented, cross-border nature of people-smuggling operations, in which organisers often remain at a distance from the physical journey.
The proceedings were notable for the presence of family members of victims, several of whom travelled from Iraqi Kurdistan to attend the opening of the trial. Their testimony offered a rare and deeply personal window into the lives behind the statistics. Zana Marmand Muhammed told the court how his younger brother Twana had "wanted to go to England to find a job and because the geopolitical situation with us is dangerous." He added: "No-one in the family wanted him to leave, but we could not dissuade him."
Nabi Mustafa Mina, the father of 19-year-old Zanyar, described his own failed efforts to keep his son at home. "I said I would help him to get married, I would give him my house, I would divide my salary in two," he told the court. "But no, he said he wanted a better life, that he would get by somehow. I ran out of arguments." The families recounted paying deposits at banks in Iraqi Kurdistan and then tracking their loved ones' progress through Turkey, Italy and finally France. One of the last messages from Twana was a photograph of himself at the Eiffel Tower.
The court also heard from one of the two survivors, Issa Omar, through a statement read by his lawyer. Omar said he "would have liked to appear before the judge but I do not have the strength. Since the wreck I have the impression that part of me disappeared beneath the waves." His lawyer, Matthieu Chirez, described how Omar had "clung to floating bodies, to a life-jacket. He survived by keeping his eyes open so as not to go to sleep, and swimming to keep his heart beating."
Speaking after the verdict, Chirez said the decision "comes as a relief for all the civil plaintiffs because it confirms the penal responsibility of the traffickers." He argued that the trial had "humanised the families of victims," transforming them from anonymous casualties of a distant crisis into individuals whose grief was formally acknowledged by the French justice system.
The lesser defendants were accused of more peripheral roles: sheltering migrants, transporting them across France to the so-called "jungle" camp outside Calais, and assisting on the night of the departure. Their lighter sentences reflect a judicial distinction between the organisers who profited from the operation and those who performed logistical tasks at its margins.
Separately, a police investigation is continuing into seven members of the French armed forces over allegations that they failed to come to the migrants' aid on the night of the disaster. The seven were stationed either at the regional sea rescue centre or aboard a navy ship when the distress calls were made. A decision on whether to recommend them for trial is expected in the coming months — a development that could raise uncomfortable questions about the response of state authorities to emergencies at sea.
The trial concluded against a shifting policy backdrop. France and the UK jointly announced the end of the so-called "one-in, one-out" scheme, under which Britain returned irregular cross-Channel migrants to France and, in exchange, accepted individuals with a likely prospect of being granted asylum. France had already signalled that the year-long programme, which saw a little more than 1,000 migrants switch country, was failing to produce the expected results in disrupting the traffickers' business model. The verdict thus lands at a moment when both governments are reassessing how to deter crossings that have proven both lucrative for smugglers and lethal for those who place their trust in them.
Comments (0)