That is not without a struggle. F. puts it on a walk, but will not be fascinated not much later. “I was afraid that I had to go to the aliens police in Rotterdam,” he explained the court this morning with the help of an interpreter why he fled. “Because I don’t have any papers.”
Moroccan nor Spanish
That’s how it is: F. was born in the Spanish enclave Melilla in the north of Morocco, but has neither Spanish nor the Moroccan nationality. He also has no residence status in the Netherlands, which makes him illegal.
F. declares to the police that he had sold the victim cocaine, and would receive 200 euros from him before that. In the court he says that she saw another joint smoking in the park, after which the supposed victim says he will withdraw money. If he is not back after half an hour, F. will leave the park with his possessions.
Trade in smartphones
On his brand new Samsung telephone, a photo of two iPhones, a laptop, a smartwatch and AirPods is found. F. tries to convince the court that these are not the man’s things. From whom? “I trade in mobile phones that I buy and with a profit,” he says.
The public prosecutor finds it an unbelievable story. According to her, on the basis of camera images, the statements of the victim and the statements of F.’s minor co -perpetrator can be proven that F. is guilty of a street robbery by violence.
Minor suspect
At his arrest, that minor suspect also had an iPhone in his pocket, who said he was not from himself, but of F.. Although he was with F. during the street robbery, he would not have had an active role in the street robbery.
That would have been confirmed by the victim, who told the police that “the fellow suspect looked afraid”. The boy himself stated that he was aware that something was wrong, and therefore he had left F..
F.’s lawyer states that the evidence for the robbery is too thin, just like the threats he would have expressed. She believes that her client should therefore be acquitted. She argues that it demands a year and a half in prison against him. “Because for a street robbery with violence in Amsterdam where several rolexes were stolen, it demanded 24 months in prison.”
Planned
The Public Prosecution Service finds the 18 -month prison requirement to justify, certainly because F. is a frequent offender. In June last year he was only a few months off after a conviction for theft. And he and his minor henchman ‘worked very planned’.
F. would prefer to return to Spain, where his wife and child live, he tells the court. Yet he gets stuck because it is feared that he will take the legs if he can wait for the verdict in freedom.
The court will rule in two weeks.