In May last year, Pieter V. (44) pushed 90-year-old Sjaak Mastbooms off his bicycle in his hometown of Veldhoven in a psychotic state. Sjaak was so seriously injured that he died three days later. His relatives discovered that Pieter V. was allowed to go on unescorted leave within six weeks of the judge’s ruling and did not return independently. They find it incomprehensible and therefore tell their story: “Did he fool everyone during the trial?”
It is May 3, 2024 when Sjaak (90) has to go to the dentist in his own hometown. His daughter Moos still calls him to ask how he goes to the dentist. Sjaak goes by bike, because he likes cycling. But he doesn’t go to the dentist. Moos is at Sjaak’s house at that moment, she has made coffee for him. Then the phone call comes, she has to go to the hospital immediately.
There she finds her father with a complicated pelvic fracture, internal bleeding and full of bruises. “He was in a lot of pain, his face was also broken and a tooth was out of his mouth. It was so sad,” says Moos. Her father is still approachable. “He said he was pushed off his bike and that the man shouted at him very loudly while he was lying on the ground. He didn’t know what happened to him.”
His daughters Moos and Loes had already discussed with him that he should be careful on the bike, given his age. “But he said: ‘If I’m not allowed to cycle anymore, I won’t have anything left.’ But when he was in the hospital, he knew things were wrong.”
“As a psychiatric patient, a prison sentence will not make you better.”
Pieter V. is arrested almost immediately after the attack. During his arrest, he also assaults a police officer. In the following year, the Public Prosecution Service and the judge will consider the case. The sisters and their families are present at every hearing. They see with their own eyes that Pieter V. is a man with major psychological problems. He doesn’t talk, doesn’t know his own name and his lawyer has difficulty contacting him. In prison, V. is given medication, which helps him improve a bit. But he remains confused and says he doesn’t know what happened that day in May.
Experts do not consider him responsible and believe that he should be treated compulsorily, via a so-called care authorization. This means that mandatory care is imposed. “Without medication and a good care network, protection remains inadequate and the risk of recurrence is moderate to high,” a psychiatrist ruled during the hearing.
Sjaak’s relatives are conducting interim discussions with the public prosecutor. It becomes clear that the judiciary follows the advice of experts and does not demand a punishment for V.. V. must be treated in a closed mental health institution. “We understood that, as a psychiatric patient you will not get better from a sentence in prison. We also felt that it was better to treat him,” the sisters explain.
“During the trial he didn’t even know his name. Can he go on leave alone 6 weeks later?”
During the last word in court, Moos tells V. that she hopes he gets the help he needs. The judge praises the relatives because the case is proceeding neatly and without anger. After the verdict on June 6, V. was immediately admitted for compulsory treatment in De Woenselse Poort in Eindhoven.
Sjaak’s family discovered that V. was allowed to go on supervised leave after four weeks and was given unsupervised leave after six weeks. They can’t believe this. Inquiries with the police and with V.’s lawyer reveal that he was indeed on unescorted leave within six weeks of being admitted. He did not return to De Woenselse Poort independently. On July 18, he was picked up by the police at his home address in Veldhoven and taken back to De Woenselse Poort.
Sjaak’s relatives react in bewilderment, they are disappointed in the system. “During the trial he didn’t even know his name, it was a lot of misery. Can he go on leave alone six weeks later? Did he fool everyone during the trial? The fact that he did not return independently from unescorted leave means that he is really not ready for that.”
They also cannot follow the fact that V. returned to Veldhoven. “They consciously take the risk that we could encounter him. It is so crooked,” Sjaak’s daughters sigh. “We told the public prosecutor ‘not that he will be back on the streets in a few weeks’. The officer assured us that this would not happen, given his problems and his past. Then things will be different now.”
The daughters are now telling their story because they want to prevent things from going wrong again when V. returns to society. “This man has been mentally ill for a long time. During the trial it was said that if he had received the right care earlier, the accident with our father would not have had to happen. We are waiting for the next incident.”
Response from lawyer Pieter V. and De Woenselse Poort
Lawyer Bart Frencken confirms that V. did indeed have one-time leave and that the leave was immediately stopped again. “For the time being, he will no longer receive unaccompanied leave, he will not receive any leave at all.”
According to Frencken, an application has now been submitted for an extension of the healthcare authorization. “As the situation is now, I estimate that this will undoubtedly be extended. With this healthcare authorization they will keep him in.”
De Woenselse Poort was asked how it was possible that V. was allowed to go on unescorted leave at such short notice and then did not return independently. She says she cannot comment substantively on V.’s case because of patient privacy.
Would you like to say something about this story? Send us your message by email or reach us guaranteed anonymously via Publeaks.