Willem P. himself was convicted in this murder case, but was willing to testify about other (possible) suspects in this case in exchange for a reward. In that case, the public prosecutor may make commitments if this is urgently necessary for the detection or prevention of serious crimes by a criminal organization. In this case, P. was promised a penalty reduction, which he also received.
A condition is that the witness must be prepared to make a statement to the judge at a public hearing. He must provide full disclosure about his role in his witness statement. After the Board of Attorneys General has given permission for this deal, it will then be submitted to the examining magistrate. The examining magistrate checks this commitment for legality (according to the law).
Former public prosecutor Fred Teeven introduced the use of key witnesses in the 1990s. The call for transparency in agreements with key witnesses conflicts with the confidentiality between key witnesses and the Public Prosecution Service (OM), Teeven said in previous interviews. It then happens that prosecutors have to testify under oath about deals with key witnesses.
In the Northern Netherlands, it is not only Public Prosecutor Van Rest who currently has to provide explanations about a deal made with a key witness. His colleague Henk Mous also has to answer for alleged agreements in an extensive drugs case in Meppel. The lawyers have the impression that a co-suspect has come off better after agreements with the Public Prosecution Service. Mous was asked about this in court last year in March. This investigation has not yet been completed.