| Return to
opening page |
. |
|
|
When considering the article below, cognisance of the new proposed British anti-terrorist legislation is relevant. Verdict in Dutch terror trialThere was a lot of interest surrounding the case because it was the first time in the Netherlands that the offence of "membership of a criminal organisation with terrorist intent" - part of new anti-terror laws - was being tested. Mohammed Bouyeri From the beginning it was clear that four members of the group wouldn't escape conviction. For a start, Mohammed Bouyeri, the man who's already been convicted of murdering Dutch film-maker Jason W Walters and Ismail Akhnikh. The court decided, just like the public prosecutor, that Bouyeri was a member and leader of the group. However, there was no further punishment, because Bouyeri is already serving a life sentence. Then there were two men who were guilty of acts of violence and a third who had been arrested in possession of a loaded machine-gun. The first two, the US-Dutch national Jason W Walters and Ismail Akhnikh were sentenced to, respectively, 15 and 13 years in prison. Siege In November 2004, the duo were arrested after a long siege during which Jason Walters had thrown a hand grenade at police. The public prosecutor originally demanded a 20 year sentence for both of them. Before the actual case, seven of the fourteen suspects had already been allowed to go free. On Friday, out of this group, five were released, two others were convicted but with sentences which were lower, or equivalent to the time they'd already served on remand - so they were allowed to go free, just like three others still behind bars, who were set free by the court. In practise, that will mean that the Dutch intelligence services will end up with a large pile of work: keeping an eye on ten people who, it was established, are members of an organisation with terrorist intent, but who haven't been given serious sentences. Differing opinions What's striking is that the court in The Hague - which oversaw the case because of better security arrangements than in Amsterdam - weighed up the evidence differently to the public prosecutor. The prosecutor had stated that the specific religious convictions of the members of the Hofstad group (an ultra radical-type of Sunni Muslim belief - the so-called 'Takfir Wal-Hijra') would inevitably lead to violent attacks being committed. However, in the judgement, this line of argument didn't return. In place of that the court decided that the accused were members of a criminal terrorist organisation which had as its intention: incitement, to incite hatred, and threaten terrorist acts. This verdict is important, because it is the first case in the Netherlands brought against a group of people on the basis of a new article on the statute book, article 140A. No 'conversation group' The public prosecutor said after the end of the case that details of the judgement still have to be studied and it's still not clear if an appeal will be lodged. To a large extent, the public prosecutor was more or less satisfied with the verdicts. According to a spokesperson it was, in any case, now clear that the Hofstad group was no innocent 'conversation group', like some of the suspect's lawyers had argued. Hans de Vreij 10-03-2006
See also:Crunch time at Hofstad trial Bouyeri's courtroom lecture |
||
| meditations |
top |
|