The most dangerous prisoners in the Netherlands must be further isolated from the outside world with a new bill from Minister Franc Weerwind (Legal Protection). The plan is to prevent criminal marching orders from ending up outside the prison walls. “I’m not saying the danger has passed.”
A year and a half ago, lawyer Youssef T. was arrested because he passed on messages from top criminal Ridouan Taghi from the prison outside the prison walls. In the fight against continued criminal activity, Minister Franc Weerwind will now be given the authority to limit communication by life-threatening criminals in the Extra Secure Institution (EBI) and the Intensive Supervision Departments (AIT), to watch conversations between lawyers and prisoners and to monitor a maximum of two lawyers per person.
“Sometimes a detainee had eight or more lawyers,” says Weerwind. Calling is only allowed for ten minutes once a week and one person is allowed to visit once a week. “I think there are now too many options in the regime, which is why I have examined this law.”
You give yourself the authority to limit contact. When do you deploy it?
“For example, if there is an investigation outside the prison walls and there is a relationship with a detainee. I will always apply it if I think that the safety of the Netherlands may be at stake.”
Why don’t you immediately restrict the communication of all top criminals in prison?
“They are already in a super strict regime, limiting contact should not just happen. You have to continuously weigh when you use what and at what time.”
Well, but if there is a reason to use it, aren’t you already too late?
“I don’t think so, because we follow very closely in the regime what is happening.”
But with Youssef T. it turned out that it is possible to pass on criminal messages, right?
“That is why I have now come up with different laws and regulations.”
So why not limit all contact moments of the most dangerous prisoners in advance?
“Of course you also have various prisoners in the EBI, detainees who pose a risk of flight, but also those who are dangerous to society or who direct large criminal organisations. So I have to look carefully at what I’m doing. That is customization. I don’t want a lawyer to whistle me back through the courts, it has to be done carefully. I don’t want the Dutch constitutional state to look like a fool in practice.”
There may be ‘visual supervision’ of conversations with lawyers. But you can’t listen in. What does that help?
“That messages cannot be pressed against the windows. Or that things can’t be written in a notebook and scratched out. And with medical support and faith support, I want the four-eyes principle, so that they sit together. Not alone anymore. I will also come up with that, because I think it is important that people are resilient by sitting there with a colleague. If I have to enshrine that in law, I will.”
Can threats and intimidation be noticed if lawyers are not allowed to listen in?
“I am also bound by international laws and regulations, which make eavesdropping impossible. A prisoner has rights, and I have to abide by those rights.”
Do you sometimes think the rights of serious criminals are more important than the safety of society?
“No, I don’t agree with that at all. It is not possible due to EU law and fundamental rights. I looked up the maximum.”
Why does the four-eyes principle not apply to lawyers?
“There are also laws and regulations that indicate to me that I must guarantee contact between lawyers and detainees. That I have to respect confidentiality.”
Or have you let your ears hang to criticism from the legal profession, which did not want to hear anything about eavesdropping?
“I don’t listen to anyone. Only to what I think is wisdom for the Netherlands. I listen, but take my own responsibility.”
Do you think that with these measures the danger has passed?
“We are emphatically reducing it. These serious criminals are very inventive, so we have to continuously monitor what is happening.”
Italy goes a lot further in separating dangerous prisoners, why don’t we do that?
“This month I will hear how the Italian regime could fit in the Netherlands, then I want to talk about it with the House. Italy has thirty years of experience with serious crime, by exchanging that experience we get a clear picture.”
Your predecessor wanted serious criminals to be tried exclusively by video, why do you deviate from this?
“I want to reduce the transport movement. But I respect the independence of the judiciary, that’s what the judge is about. I see the risks if a prisoner has to be transported from a to b. But I’m not going to sit in the judge’s chair.”
From when can doctors and clergy only enter in pairs?
“I’m in a hurry. These are clergy and medical personnel, such as doctors and physiotherapists. Two imams, two doctors. It’s also good for those doctors, they can be sounding boards. Suppose there is a threat, then the other will hear it. A prisoner knows that too, he will get two for the price of one from now on.”
Can you guarantee that no more murder orders or other criminal messages will go out?
“There is no 100 percent security. It is continuous learning and application. It is for this reason that I come up with this package. And yet we will have to see whether we need to tighten up every time.”