If it were up to the Public Prosecution Service, the manufacturer and designer of the Stint would have to go to prison for five years and four months. The suspects heard the Public Prosecution Service’s demand in silence on Monday in the court in Den Bosch.
Entrepreneur Edwin Renzen and designer Peter Noorlander of Stint are held responsible by the Public Prosecution Service for the tragic Stint accident in 2018 in Oss in which four children died. The Public Prosecution Service (OM) is demanding fines of 225,000 and 135,000 euros against their companies.
The Public Prosecution Service explained in court on Monday what the defects were in the Stint, which, according to the Public Prosecution Service, led to the fatal accident at the railway crossing in Oss. According to the Public Prosecution Service, the defects can be blamed on the suspects.
Lack of emergency stop facility
The Public Prosecution Service argued that the accident would not have happened if there had been a brake switch on the Stint. The accident could also have been prevented if the mechanical brake had been good or if there was an emergency braking device and the instructions had been properly learned.
The Public Prosecution Service also accuses the two suspects of forgery. For example, there are alleged untruths in the Stint manual, for example that the means of transport complied with the Machinery Directive and that the process for a CE mark had been completed.
Deception upon deception upon deception
A few hours after the fatal accident, the Stint manual was adjusted. In the original manual, which referred to the Machinery Directive and so-called ISO standards, the sentence about the Machinery Directive was removed.
This modified version of the manual was sent to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management after the accident. “We blame the suspects for deceiving the ministry in this way. There is deception, after deception, after deception.”
Driver is not guilty
The Public Prosecution Service also disagreed with the defense who wanted to blame the driver. At the request of the defense, an investigation was conducted by Baan Hofman Accident Analysis. According to the Public Prosecution Service, with this investigation the defense wants to pin the blame on the driver. According to Baan Hofman, she got off, opened the throttle and got back on. The Dutch Forensic Institute refutes this.
According to the Public Prosecution Service, Baan Hofman also focuses too much on the latest camera images. The officer calls Baan Hofman’s conclusions unjustified and that is bad in such a precarious case. “In our view, the director is not to blame. She fought for the children, a battle that she could not win.”
Here you can read all the stories about the accident with the Stint in Oss.