Long ago, I read a piece by the well-known Belgian psychiatrist Dirk de Wachter, also called the ‘grief doctor,’ because he argues that it is in unhappiness that the greatest connections are made. ‘Take care of yourself, take care of your health and take care of your environment, your fellow man. Happiness then comes naturally,’ De Wachter said.
This wisdom had languished considerably in my memory until I had the opportunity to represent the interests of victims and survivors at two major criminal trials last month.
Utrecht streetcar attack and criminal trial MH17
During the first week of March, the criminal trial place against the suspect in the Utrecht streetcar attack. In the second week of March, the criminal trial in the MH17 case started, against four defendants from Russia and Ukraine. Much was at stake in both criminal trials. In the first place for the victims and relatives, and in the second place for the Dutch constitutional state. Because in these types of major proceedings there are often questions that transcend the case in question, and are therefore important for the development of the law.
Cross-case law question 1: speech rights
For example, in the media following the trial in the Utrecht streetcar attack, discussion flared up about the right to speak on. Should it right to speak be exercised in the presence of the accused, or do the victims then run the risk of having their trauma further magnified by the accused's reaction? I had the opportunity in the media to express my own opinion on this subject. Which is that we should not immediately conclude that the right to speak is counterproductive if a suspect reacts violently to a victim's statement. That intense interaction between suspect and victim is part of the ritual of the criminal process, and can play a role in processing what happened. This is true for both the victim and the accused.
Cross-case law question 2: cognizance of criminal record
In the MH17 case there was the more fundamental question of at what point the next of kin have a right to learn about the procedural documents. After these documents have been substantively discussed at the hearing, as the prosecution argued, or before that? The court decided the case in favor of the next of kin: they can only effectively use this important right if they (at least their lawyers) have access to (an important part of) the file before the substantive hearing. This is also important for their right to file a claim for compensation in the criminal process.
Cross-case law question 3: liability police shooting tragedy Alphen aan den Rijn
The criminal trials reminded me of another case in which great interests and emotions of victims and survivors were accompanied by great questions of law, namely the shooting tragedy in Alphen aan den Rijn in 2011. As a firm, we litigated up to and including the Supreme Court on behalf of a large group of victims and survivors regarding the liability of the police for wrongfully granting a firearms permit to the shooter. The Supreme Court upheld the court's ruling that the victims are entitled to damages because the police should not have granted the firearms permit. The issue in granting firearms leave is that the safety of persons is not compromised. Therefore, if leave is granted to someone where that danger does exist, as in this case, there is a right to compensation if that danger materializes. With the Supreme Court's ruling, the police's liability for the consequences of the shooting has been definitively established, and the damages of the victim and next of kin must be compensated. In the first place, this is a great victory for the relatives and victims, but in addition, it is an important step for legal development. This was also the opinion of the Supreme Court itself, which in the annual report on 2019 included the judgment on Alphen aan den Rijn in the selection of five judgments that have been important for legal development:
"Take care of your fellow man. Happiness will come naturally"
People around me sometimes ask me whether it isn't hard to do this kind of large-scale litigation where the interests and emotions of the victims are so great. My answer is invariably that it is not hard at all, but that it gives me energy to contribute to the judicial process through my work. And thus to be able to do something for the victims as well as for the development of justice. And that it gives energy has everything to do with the mechanism described by The Guardian: 'Care for your fellow man. Happiness will come naturally.'
If you have questions about this blog, please contact the author, Arlette Schijns.