The Attorney General at the Supreme Court plans to investigate the application of the crown witnesses scheme by the Public Prosecution Service in a number of high-profile criminal cases. The Supreme Court stated this in response to questions from NRC. The final decision will be made later this month.
The intention of the PG to look into the application of the key witnesses scheme is related to the hard conclusions that the Dutch Safety Board (OVV) recently drew about the protection of three murdered persons from the circle of Nabil B., key witness in the criminal case against prime suspect Ridouan Taghi.
The Attorney General (PG) at the Supreme Court is one of the bodies that, according to the law, supervises the Public Prosecution Service independently. For example, the PG previously investigated the way in which the Public Prosecution Service issues punishment orders. When the PG conducts such investigations, the central question is always whether the Public Prosecution Service applies the law properly, according to a spokesman for the Supreme Court.
And that is precisely the reason that no final decision has yet been made about the crown witness investigation. Before it comes to an investigation, it must first be established whether the law has been formulated with sufficient precision. “If that is not the case, the PG cannot check whether the law has been properly applied by the Public Prosecution Service,” says the spokesman for the Supreme Court.
The conclusions have major consequences for the deployment of key witnesses and the functioning of the Public Prosecution Service
Last week, Minister Yesilgöz (Justice and Security, VVD) alluded to an investigation by the PG in her response to the OVV report to the House of Representatives. The conclusions of the OVV have major consequences for the deployment of key witnesses and the functioning of the Public Prosecution Service. “Given the legal task of the PG at the Supreme Court to supervise the Public Prosecution Service, it is conceivable that the question arises as to whether an investigation by the Attorney General into the functioning of the Public Prosecution Service is useful,” said the spokesman for the Supreme Court. .
Several things escalated
Since the introduction of the crown witness scheme in 2006, various cases have escalated. In the Passage process about a series of liquidations around the turn of the century, many questions were asked about the agreement with key witness Peter la Serpe. He would have received 1.4 million euros to organize his own security. Lawyers then wondered whether that promise was in line with the principle that crown witnesses should not receive money for their statement. The Public Prosecution Service has always denied that there was any payment of the key witness, but judges could not test this because the agreement with key witness La Serpe was secret.
Read alsoHarsh criticism of security around key witness Nabil B.
When it comes to an investigation, the PG has the authority of the Supreme Court to request all documents from the Public Prosecution Service that are necessary for the investigation. This also applies to the secret protection agreements that the Public Prosecution Service has concluded with key witnesses, says the spokesman for the Supreme Court. “The Public Prosecution Service is obliged to provide all documents”. He emphasizes that the Supreme Court then treats those documents confidentially.
Should the Supreme Court come to the conclusion that there is insufficient legislation and the Public Prosecution Service cannot therefore be measured against it, this will, according to the Supreme Court spokesperson, “send a signal to the Minister of Security and Justice to to consider the legislation.”