‘Dismissing the Rietbergen case is simple, but additionally very painful’

• Jules Jessuron

  Textual content editor on-line

The Public Prosecution Service has opened the case towards the chief of the band The Voice of Holland Jeroen Rietbergen dismissed as a result of lack of proof. The Public Prosecution Service determined final March to conduct a prison investigation into the musician. The choice was made to not prosecute him yesterday. Why did it take over a 12 months?

In keeping with the Public Prosecution Service, that is partly as a result of “the findings of the extra investigation have been rigorously thought-about along side the investigation already carried out”. Rietbergen admitted that he had proven inappropriate sexual conduct on The Voice. Nevertheless, he denies that there was any coercion. “It has not been proven that the suspect used actual management or a place of energy over the reporter. That is obligatory to have the ability to speak about coercion from a authorized viewpoint,” mentioned the Prosecution Service Public.

“The case is taking a very long time and that could be a massive burden,” says Rietbergen’s lawyer Wout Morra. The lawyer Sébas Diekstra, who represented the plaintiff, doesn’t say something concerning the time which the Public Prosecution Service needed to attain its choice. Nevertheless, it says it can “look at the entire file rigorously and likewise wish to know precisely what forces and the problems concerned in not prosecuting.

Professor of prison regulation on the College of Amsterdam Sven Brinkhoff isn’t shocked that the prison investigation lasted greater than a 12 months. He cites affordability issues as a cause, amongst different issues. In 2022 it turned out that the Public Prosecution Service typically offers with sexual offenses he was solely delivered to trial at a late stage due to these issues. As well as, in response to him, sexual crimes are sometimes delicate and sophisticated to research. “These are severe issues. It isn’t like stealing a licorice roll.”

Felony lawyer and professor of prison regulation observe at Leiden College Patrick van der Meij is extra sure: he believes that the Public Prosecution Service took a very long time to do that. “I feel {that a} 12 months is a very long time when you’ve got submitted a report or a report has been made towards you and you’ve got been unsure all that point. And particularly with a case with lots of media consideration, he anticipated that “it’s in everybody’s curiosity to resolve this sooner”.

The Public Prosecution Service believes that there’s not sufficient proof from a authorized viewpoint to speak about coercion: subsequently there’s not sufficient proof to cost Rietbergen. For the plaintiff, this will likely sound like it’s not believed, however it does not need to be, say Van der Meij and Brinkhoff.

“The Public Prosecution Service says there press launch In actuality: what occurred is unlucky for the plaintiff, however it doesn’t attain the restrict of prison legal responsibility,” says Van der Meij. “It isn’t a provable crime. On this delicate matter, cautious consideration will probably be given to not press costs.”

Brinkhoff additionally understands that frustration. “It’s a excellent factor that within the Netherlands we don’t convict somebody if there’s not sufficient proof. The regulation is obvious in that regard: if one particular person makes prison statements about one other particular person, whereas the opposite particular person denies it and there’s no different proof, then a decide have to be acquitted.

A brand new regulation comes into impact on July 1 that requires proof of coercion in circumstances of sexual violence it’s now not wanted. Brinkhoff believes that the case towards Rietbergen wouldn’t result in prosecution even with this new regulation as a result of it’s nonetheless his phrase towards the phrase of the sufferer. However the Public Prosecution Service talked about that new regulation within the clarify about not accusing Rietbergen. Van der Meij: “I believe that the Public Prosecution Service considers that prosecution in such circumstances will be extra profitable underneath the brand new regulation and that’s the reason the change within the regulation is being talked about , however they do not say it clearly. That may at all times depend upon the brand new regulation. the circumstances of the actual case.”

That does not make a lot distinction on this case anyway: it is nonetheless underneath the outdated regulation. The reporter can nonetheless provoke an Article 12 process along with her lawyer, the place the Public Prosecution Service will be pressured to deliver the case to court docket via the court docket. There’s a likelihood that the Public Prosecution Service will then request an exemption, Brinkhoff mentioned. “Actually given the time that has handed and the care that the Public Prosecution Service is taking, it’s unlikely that additional inquiries by the police will reveal extra helpful data.”