‘We mainly heard what is not possible.’ In an open letter, Julie Van Espen’s parents denounce the limited changes within the judiciary since the murder of their daughter. ‘There is still a long way to go’, their lawyer John Maes responds.
‘Professional liability is apparently a very difficult subject within the judiciary,’ write Julie Van Espen’s parents. Is there too little control over judges?
“The independence of the judiciary is fundamental. It is therefore certainly not the intention that magistrates should be held accountable for the statements they make. For the parents, it is mainly about the other duties that a magistrate may have.
“The reason is, of course, that in the file about Julie Van Espen it emerged that the then first chairman of the Court of Appeal decided at a certain point to close a chamber where more than seventy files still had to be dealt with, without whether certain files should be given priority after all. As a result, the file of the second rape for which Steve Bakelmans (the killer of Julie Van Espen, KVD) had already been convicted in the first instance and ended up in a pile of files in the cupboard.
“The murder of Julie was committed during that period. According to the family, this is a mistake by the magistrate in his position as the first president of the Court of Appeal. Her parents use that to show that more supervision is needed in that area.”
What exactly do they want to change?
“One of the sore points is that the period for submitting a disciplinary complaint about the functioning of a magistrate is limited to six months. The parents want to extend it to twelve months. In addition, they also ask that chiefs of police are properly evaluated. They monitor the proper functioning of their magistrates, but they themselves have not been evaluated for many years.
“That bothers the family, because in their eyes the mistake in Julie’s file was made by the chief constable of the Court of Appeal. It is very bitter for the parents to find that nothing has happened with that demonstrable error.”
The parents are particularly critical of the Supreme Court of Justice. “Their input was again very sad, even defensive,” they write, referring to the recent hearings in the Justice Committee. Why is that council so reluctant to change?
“I do not know either. You notice that in their reporting they often find it very difficult to put their finger on the wound and to name names where necessary.”
The parents proposed the establishment of a Committee J a few years ago. What is that right?
“That idea was indeed launched by the parents some time ago. A Committee J could be a control body on the magistracy, as Committee P is on the police apparatus. If the powers of the Supreme Judicial Council are not expanded, that committee could take on those tasks. It could then function alongside the council. I don’t want to say whether that’s the solution. But it does deserve serious debate. Politically you notice a lot of resistance to create that body.”
In 2020, the parents already wrote an open letter with possible measures. Has nothing changed at all since then?
“Of course, we can’t portray it all negatively. For example, sexual criminal law has since been updated. In addition, the Care Centers for Sexual Violence have been further expanded and developed. These make it possible to provide victims with all the appropriate guidance under one roof, from filing a complaint about trace investigation to psychological help. That is a really important achievement. There is also progress in the field of digitalisation, for example, and I have noticed that myself as a lawyer. But at the same time there is still a long way to go.”
