The lawyers of the Stint directors want an acquittal for their clients. According to defender Geert-Jan Knoops, after years of research it is still not clear what the exact cause of the fatal accident with the Stint in Oss was. “Because you can only convict if one of the two scenarios has been established beyond reasonable doubt, and that has not happened,” he said on Tuesday after the hearing in the court in Den Bosch.
The fifth day of hearing in the Stint case was entirely devoted to the defense. On Monday, the Public Prosecution Service demanded another five years and four months in prison for the directors of Stint. On Tuesday, four lawyers made their plea, with the clear aim: acquittal on all counts.
‘Two scenarios, no established cause’
According to Knoops, one of the four lawyers for the Stint directors, it has never been established what exactly led to the fatal accident in Oss. Multiple scenarios have been investigated, including a technical cause and human error. “It has not been determined by any expert which scenario we can assume,” he says. “You cannot therefore rule out the scenario that a human error has been committed in this case.”
That, according to the defense, makes a conviction impossible. “If you cannot rule out both scenarios, you cannot actually convict,” says Knoops. “Because you can only convict if one of the two scenarios has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, and that has not happened.”
Criticism of the Public Prosecution Service
The defense accuses the Public Prosecution Service of tunnel vision. Knoops acknowledges that the need for someone to blame is understandable, but warns of the consequences. “The emotion and need in society to find someone to blame is understandably present,” he says. “But that emotion and that need should not go so far that you actually funnel the evidence towards that goal.”
According to Knoops, this relies too much on one scenario, namely that something went wrong with the Stint and that directors Edwin Renzen and Bart Noorlander are responsible for it. According to Knoops, the evidence is interpreted around that idea, causing other scenarios to disappear from view.
Painful for relatives
Knoops emphasizes that the defense is aware of the impact on the surviving relatives. “That can be very painful for the relatives to hear, we understand that too,” he says. “But that is simply the role of the defense in criminal law. Criminal law is about what is factually true: what has been factually established and what has not.”
According to Knoops, possible criticism of actions does not automatically mean that a criminal offense has occurred. “If you say: that Stint had certain defects, suppose you assume that, then that does not mean that you have committed a criminal offense.”
Criminal law versus civil law
In criminal law, it must be proven that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Under civil law, a producer can be liable for damage caused by defects, even without intent.
According to the defense, there is insufficient evidence for a criminal conviction in this case. The defense therefore argues that acquittal is legally the only correct outcome.
Here you can read all the stories about the accident with the Stint in Oss.