Lang geleden las ik een stukje van de bekende Belgische psychiater Dirk de Wachter, ook wel de ‘verdrietdokter’ genoemd, omdat hij stelt dat in de ongelukkigheid de grootste verbindingen tot stand komen. ‘Zorg voor uzelf, zorg voor uw gezondheid en zorg voor uw omgeving, voor uw medemens. Geluk komt er dan vanzelf bij,’ aldus De Wachter.
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 van start, tegen vier verdachten uit Rusland en de Oekraïne. In beide strafprocessen stond er veel op het spel. In de eerste plaats voor de slachtoffers en nabestaanden, in de tweede plaats voor de Nederlandse rechtsstaat. Want in dit soort grote procedures spelen vaak vragen die de betreffende zaak overstijgen, en die daarmee van belang zijn voor de ontwikkeling van het recht.
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 de MH17-zaak speelde de meer principiële vraag op welk moment de nabestaanden recht hebben om kennis te nemen van de processtukken. Nadat deze stukken op de zitting inhoudelijk zijn besproken, zoals het OM stelde, of daarvoor al? De rechtbank heeft het pleit in het voordeel van de nabestaanden beslecht: zij kunnen dit belangrijke recht alleen effectief gebruiken als zij (in ieder geval hun advocaten) voor de inhoudelijke zitting over (een belangrijk deel van) het dossier beschikken. Dit is ook van belang voor hun recht op het indienen van een vordering tot 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.