Zacht Ei

Doorbakken kan altijd nog


Wednesday, July 27, 2005

More on the Bouyeri sentencing

(The full verdict is here, by the way.)

Several bloggers have remarked on the fact that the judge didn't take away his active and passive voting rights.

However, the D.A. is still considering to appeal the verdict for precisely those reasons. The 'double jeopardy' doctrine doesn't exist in the Netherlands.

He has a fortnight to reach a decision. I'll keep you posted.

0:09

permalink comment(s) (5) trackback(s) (0)


« 

Postpone Bulgarian entry to the European Union   Zacht Ei features in Handelsblatt

 »


Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry


The double jeopardy rule, or ne bis in idem, does exist in the Netherlands. Once a verdict is final, you cannot be tried again for the same crime. The verdict is final when both parties agree that it is, or when the highest court in the land (or sometimes the European Court of Human Rights) gives its verdict, ie that there is no other court to appeal to.

Govert (ip:80.60.205.100) 27 July 2005 - 7:35 uur


Thanks for that, very helpful, as I am not a legal expert. But the way I understand the American and British system, double jeopardy there means that the D.A. is severely limited in appealing the sentence under that doctrine as well. As in the Michael Jackson case, the D.A. can't appeal, which he could have in the Netherlands. Indeed, in the case of Bouyeri, the D.A. can still appeal but in the Dutch system, this is seen as a continuation of the same trial, whereas in the USA it would be considered a new one. So aren't we talking two different things here?

Arjan Dasselaar (ip:82.161.93.35) 27 July 2005 - 11:18 uur


The difference is not in the double jeopardy rule, but whether you have a jury trial or a trial by a judge (or a panel of judges) only. Appealing against a judge's decision makes sense, but appealing against a jury decision does not. A higher court is supposed to have more experienced and better judges, whereas there is no difference (in theory) between one jury and the next. So appealing in a jury trial is prohibited, although there are some possibilities for reopening a case if, for example, the court is duped or if the law wasn't applied correctly.

Govert (ip:80.60.205.100) 27 July 2005 - 1:20 uur


Thanks, that's very helpful.

Can you recommend sources, as I'd like to read up a bit on this. Obviously, Wikipedia doesn't always cut it ;-)

Arjan Dasselaar (ip:82.161.93.35) 27 July 2005 - 1:22 uur


The BBC has a programme on a case of double jeopardy in 1817

Rechtspraak.nl has something to say about ne bis in idem:

No appeal is possible in an Assisen-trial in Belgium:

Examples of re-opening cases after a jury trial are the Guilford Four and the Birmingham Six cases.

And there is always the library.

Govert (ip:80.60.205.100) 27 July 2005 - 23:42 uur


Comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(By submitting comments you agree to have read and accepted the forum rules. If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)



Remember me?