Fashionman Martijn N. has been sentenced on appeal to 42 months in prison for two rapes, fornication with two minors and sexual assault. The court considers five cases proven, considerably more than the court previously did.
The court in Amsterdam annulled the previous judgment because it reached different decisions than the district court. The court considers five of the ten sexual offenses proven. This concerns two rapes, fornication with two underage boys and one sexual assault. An acquittal follows in the other cases.
The Public Prosecution Service had demanded seven years in prison. That was a lot more than the sentence that N. received from the court a year and a half ago was sentenced to eighteen months in prison, eight of which were conditional. The court then convicted him of indecency with two minors and assault. The remaining cases were acquitted or the judiciary was declared inadmissible.
The punishment is now much higher. The court takes a prison sentence of fifty months as a starting point. This will initially be reduced by six months, partly due to the age of some of the facts, the media attention and the somewhat reduced accountability. This is followed by a two-month penalty reduction because the reasonable period has been exceeded.
The case against N., who was absent from the verdict, grew into one of the largest Dutch criminal cases involving sexual violence against men. It came started five years ago after research by Het Parool and NRCfor which the newspapers spoke to more than a hundred people. After the publications, eighteen men reported to the police.
No switching certificate
The ten cases that were part of the appeal took place between 2011 and 2021. Many declarants were young when they agreed with N.; two of them were fifteen years old. A number of them stated that they froze during sex, did not dare to say anything or only realized afterwards what had happened to them.
The court does not agree with the Public Prosecution Service’s reasoning that in all cases there was a recognizable working method of N. that could serve as linking evidence. According to the court, the similarities between the declarations are not specific enough to provide independent evidence in each individual case.
The court therefore makes a separate assessment for each case. It always looks at three questions: is the declarant’s statement reliable, is there sufficient supporting evidence and was there coercion? Only then does the question arise whether that coercion was also intentional on N.’s part.
In several cases, the court says it sees no reason to doubt the statements of declarants. However, this does not automatically lead to a conviction. In a number of cases, according to the court, sufficient supporting evidence is lacking or it cannot be legally and convincingly proven that there was coercion.
The facts were still covered by the old moral law, from before July 1, 2024. For a conviction for rape, it had to be proven that there was coercion, violence or threat. Under the new moral law, explicit consent is much more central.
Coercion and resistance
N. has always denied that he forced anyone to have sex. During the appeal hearing, he said that although he had been ‘too dominant’, there was no question of coercion. “If it is clearly said no, then it is no,” he told the court.
In two cases, the court concluded that rape did occur, which also led to emotion in the audience. In one case it is important that, according to the court, N. squeezed the victim’s throat. The court calls this ‘without further ado’ an act of violence that, in those circumstances, can force someone to undergo or perform sexual acts.
The court also considers it proven in another case that N. ignored verbal protest. In the assault on a seventeen-year-old boy at the time, the court established that he resisted verbally and physically, but that N. continued. The court speaks of dominant behavior that caused the victim to be overwhelmed.
The court states in the sentencing statement that N. ‘cannot hide’ behind his statement that he only assumes a dominant position in the bedroom. According to the court, his belief that partners always had the freedom to say no indicates ‘a serious underestimate’ of the effects of his dominant and sometimes violent actions.
Also compensation
N. had already been convicted of fornication with two underage boys. Those convictions remain. The court calls it ‘shocking’ that N. deliberately met up with fifteen-year-old boys and then had sex with them in a dominant and rough manner.
N. must also pay damages: 6,100 euros to one victim, 5,000 euros to three others and 4,000 euros to a fifth. When sentencing, the court takes into account N.’s treatment, the age of some of the facts, the media attention and the fact that no new facts have become known since 2021.
The court’s ruling brings the case to a substantive conclusion after more than five years. N.’s lawyer Gerard Spong, who had argued for acquittal, announced that the defense is considering appealing to the Supreme Court. It does not look again at the facts, but only whether the court has applied the law correctly and has sufficiently substantiated its judgment.