Nous, xxx juge d'instruction

10:41 Nov 26, 2013 

The fact that the person concerned is not acting in a personal capacity should be indicated, but not by using the royal "we". E.g. I, XXX, as examining magistrate ... "

08:41 Nov 26, 2013 

the "we" should be kept - it reflects also the fact that the instructing judge acts on behalf of an institution - like a member of any kind of group saying "we".

22:11 Nov 25, 2013 

but it's got a purpose, as does this particular 'we'. It also sounds weird in French and in Dutch, but that's the system. Can't change it.

22:05 Nov 25, 2013 

I wouldn't keep the "we". It sounds weird when the queen says it, let alone a judge.

21:55 Nov 25, 2013 

yes. They are the judges or magistrates who investigate. I believe they decide to charge the suspect or not. The 'nous', is a kind of 'royal we' if you will. The person is not a person in himself, but he is an amalgamation of the person (the man/woman) and the function. Hence, 'we consider'. In common law that different. I always keep the 'we', because I think that idea should be expressed, no matter how slightly strange it sounds. You see it on marriage certificates too with reference to the Registrar.

21:36 Nov 25, 2013 

Thank you.

21:24 Nov 25, 2013 

... or alternately the "Investigating Judge" --- it's kind of a uniquely French system term