Dealing with ‘the dirty damn cow’ isn’t very nice, is it, says the police judge in Rotterdam

Do we need to see the images again, the police judge asks. Before him, in the Rotterdam court, are four suspects. They shake their heads. They’ve already seen the images. “I would like to take a closer look at them,” says the prosecutor. The recordings, made at the De Keizer Vee cattle collection company in Oud-Alblas, appear on two screens. “The images are not pretty,” says the police judge.

“Who do we see here?” he asks the suspects. “That’s you, right? We see you kicking the cow. Pulling its tail. Hitting it on the head. Why are you doing that?” Niek, who is in charge of the day-to-day management of the company, indicates that he tries to get the cow up “in an unpleasant way”. “We see a stick here, don’t we?” asks the police judge. This cattle prod, which has been banned in the Netherlands since January 2026, produces electric shocks. “Prick, prick, prick again, prick again. On the head too. The light on the skewer is always on. The cow is not moving, is it?” says the judge.

The images shown in court were recorded with secret cameras by Research Group Ongehoord, which “stands up for animals in the meat industry” in April 2025. The images were published in December of that year. Livestock collection companies such as this company in Oud-Alblas function as a stopover in the livestock industry. Animals from various farms are transferred to one point, so that only a well-filled truck has to drive to a slaughterhouse. Ongehoord has installed hidden cameras not only at this company, but also at four other livestock collectors, where abuses have all been observed. Yet it is precisely this company that is being tried in court because of the seriousness of the abuse.

“We’re going to look further,” says the police judge in courtroom 2. “’That must be tender meat,’ you say here. That doesn’t sound good, does it.” The cow in question, which cannot get up despite everything done to it, has a rope tied around its hind legs. It shows how the rope is tied to a shovel, with which the cow is lifted by its legs and dragged on its back across the ground. Just before she disappears from view, she lifts her head briefly.

They kick and hit ‘the dirty damn cow’

“Why did it happen this way?” asks the police judge. The four suspects all play a different role and are also suspected of other crimes. Arthur works at the company where Niek, the owner’s son, is in charge of the day-to-day management, his brother Job and sister Kris were “coincidentally” present that day. Arthur drags the cow away by its legs with the shovel. Niek kicks and hits the animal and frequently uses the cattle prod. Job supports him. Kris reports the crime and in that capacity may be complicit.

“It’s in the heat of the moment “It happened like this,” says Niek. “I actually have no words for it, it shouldn’t happen like this,” he says. Job calls it “terrible” and “not good.” He does not work at the company himself and therefore has nothing to do with it, he says, except that he assisted his brother Niek that day. And why those rude statements, the judge asks Job. “It really looks very nasty and when I hear some funny lyrics about tender meat, I can interpret that as you are having fun with it too. Do you know what I mean? It’s not really caring about the cow.”

Are the images, showing the treatment of, in Niek’s words, “the dirty damn cow” that does not want to get up, permissible? According to the officer, yes. They may have been recorded secretly, but they lawfully arrived at the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) and subsequently at the Public Prosecution Service, where a criminal investigation was started. The officer cites witness statements from two veterinarians who work at the NVWA. “Shocking and brutal,” he reads. “Only a carcass may be moved in this way.” And: “Criminal behavior.”

Animals may be legally kept and slaughtered for human consumption, but they may not “cause injury or pain without a reasonable purpose or in excess of what is permissible to achieve that purpose.” The fact that the cow, clearly in pain and unable to get up, is pricked dozens of times and thus moved is a blatant violation of what is permissible. It is, says the officer, “total disregard for a living being.”

He takes the ‘sadistic character’ with him

Then it’s up to the defense. The lawyer states “without downplaying what happened” that “where work is done, mistakes are also made.” He believes that the images should not be used and that publishing the images has already resulted in social punishment. Two days after the images were published, in December 2025, two men were arrested for making “serious threats” against the cattle collection company.

After a short interruption, the police judge closes the investigation and makes an immediate ruling. Kris is acquitted because it cannot be proven that she was complicit with “double intent”. The “three gentlemen” are a different story. “Animal welfare is taken seriously,” he says. And he also takes into account the “sadistic character”. Niek and Job, who kicked and poked, will receive a community service order of 150 hours or 75 days in custody, plus one month of probation with a validity of two years to prevent recidivism. Arthur receives 120 hours of community service or 60 days in custody and one month of probation. They may continue their work.

Give a gift





Part





Email the editor