The Public Prosecution Service noted that M. and W. have already been convincing six and twelve respectively. In 1998, M. was even convicted of arson. In those circumstances, effective prison was now demanded for ten months. The defense explained that the defendant was then homeless, but in the meantime by another conviction in prison. In those circumstances, probation conditions were in vain.
M. successfully hoped for a punishment with a delay, linked to conditions. According to the defense, his alcohol addiction played a major role in the facts. “In a sober state, he knows all too well that it wasn’t that funny,” said Master Ewout Lievens.