The defendant and his co-perpetrators attempted to rob a large sum of money from the victim at a house on December 21, 2002. One of the co-defendants was in possession of a firearm and shot it at least three times, killing the victim. The court found the defendant guilty of attempted theft, extortion, and causing death by working with two or more people. The defendant received a serious penalty due to the serious nature of the offense, which resulted in the brutal denial of a young man's life. The defendant had a previous conviction for a weapons violation.

1. instance Utrecht District court
date of judgment 12-09-2003
date of publication 12-09-2003
Case number 16/110816-02
jurisdictions criminal Law
Special characteristics First instance - multiple
Special characteristics First instance - multiple
content Display
Defendant and his co-perpetrators on December 21, 2002 in a house at the Mereveld
Plein De Meern on refined and thoughtful manner attempted (victim) to rob a large sum
of money. Suspect had a financial interest in the implementation of the plan. Suspect is
ignoring the risks that could entail the plan. There has been close cooperation between
the suspect and his co-defendants. One of the co-accused was in possession of a
firearm and shot this at least three times. Suspect and his co-defendants are thus not
hesitated to use serious violence against fellow human beings and has accused the fate
of the victim apparently not at all bothered. The result of this offense is brutally a young
life is taken away.
Repositories Rechtspraak.nl
Pronunciation
COURT OF UTRECHT
Parquet Number: 16 / 110816-02, 16 / 029567-02 (ie wt..) 21 / 002215-00 (tul) Date of decision: September 12,
2003 Contradiction
Raadsvrouwe: mr. G.E.M. van der Gun G/T: Nee
CONDENSED JUDGMENT
of the Utrecht District Court, judge criminal, in the case against:
(Suspect)
present detained in the Penitentiary Overijssel, detention center Karel Kamp Almelo.
ECL: NL: The RBUT: 2003: AK3471

2. This judgment was rendered further research on the hearings of June 27, 2003, August 27, 2003 and August 29, 2003.
the indictment
The accused has been charged with what is specified in the summons. At the request of the Prosecutor amend the alleged facts parquet No. 16 /
110816-02 hearing on August 27, 2003 authorized. Of the summons and of the application to amend the indictment are copies as Annexes I and II
attached to this judgment. The content of these annexes is considered to be inserted here.
The admissibility of the prosecutor
The DA is admissible, being shown no evidence of reasons, which stand in the way to the responsiveness.
acquittal
Not been legally and convincingly proven which placed the suspect under 16 / 110816-02 under 2 and under 16 / 029567-02 under 1 and under 2 is
charged. The accused must be acquitted.
The proven statement
Proof Recital:
The exact circumstances of the shooting, which was followed by the arrival of (victim) at the home of co-defendant H. V. the court is not clear, as it
sees insufficient grounds to undertake accompanied to (do) investigation. This applies both in respect of (victim), which is lethal hit, and in terms of
co-suspect T. and suspicious that have been injured by four bullets and bullet one, respectively. It is - all available data considered - extremely unlikely
that (victim) came to life other than one or two bullets, faded by one or more of the five defendants present in the home. (The court understood below
under "suspect and his co-defendants' five on December 21, 2002 in the home present suspects.)
The evidence shows the following:
* Suspect had along with co-defendant O. a monetary claim amounting to 150,000.00 Euro at Greystone Holding BV, a company controlled by the
co-defendant H. V. and his business partner (...) were the leaders.
* Defendant, together with co-defendant O. on December 20, 2002 and December 21, 2002 had discussions with co-defendant H. V. about money
claim. They had a financial interest in this matter.
* discussed at these talks about a large sum of money amounting to approximately

3. Euro 300,000.00, at least a substantial amount of money, which by (victim) would be brought to the home of co-defendant H. V on December 21, 2002 as
part of an exchange transaction.
* Statements by co-defendant H. V. appears that a plan is made that the Defendant and his co-defendants (the victim) would expropriate the money
and that (victims), co-defendant H.
V. and any other people in the house would be tied with tie-wraps.
* According to a statement by suspect he would receive that night Euro 300.000,00.
* Suspect On December 21, 2002 the suspect B. asked to go to De Meern. The statement accused shows that co-defendant and co-defendant B. T.
would receive money for services rendered.
* B. co-accused in possession of a firearm, along with T. co-defendant at the request of suspect first to the co-defendant H. V. went home to take
a look. When it appeared that co-defendant H. V. was alone has co-defendant B. suspect phoned it was safe.
* Suspect knew (victim) was in possession of a firearm.
* found in the co-defendant H. V. his home tie wraps. Similar tie-wraps are also found in the barn at the home of co-defendant O..
* Statements by co-defendant H. V. show that co-defendant O. tie-wraps have met in the home of his pocket and held in his hands.
* Suspect has co-defendant T. dedicated cigarette butts to do back in the pack because no butts were left in the house of co-defendant H. V ..
* At the time (victim) knocked on the door, was co-defendant H. V. to open the door. The Defendant against co-defendant T. said with co-defendant H.
V. to walk. Partly Suspect T. walked into the hall.
* At the time (victim) the property is entered, was co-defendant B., in possession of a firearm in the dark in the kitchen. The hallway and the hallway
were also unlit.
* B. fellow suspect has shot at least three times with the gun from the kitchen toward the hall. There is also shot with a different gun.
* (Victim) was killed by one or more bullets whose origin can not be determined.
From the above facts and circumstances, interrelated considered and in conjunction with other evidence, following the opinion of the court that under one
principal charges being proven legally and convincingly in the manner specified in Annex III this verdict. The content of this Annex is considered to be
inserted here.
Defense of the counselor:
The counselor at the hearing argued on behalf of the accused that has not come out of the case established that there has been on December 21, 2002
of attempted robbery and extortion having caused the death. The counselor denies that there has been planning a robbery. No discussions have taken
place for about a rip deal. Suspect is the co-defendants to the home of co-defendant
H. V. gone, because (the victim) would come and bring the money to pay off all debts.
Also, the counselor behalf suspect has invoked self-defense or defense excess, under which accused should be discharged from further
prosecution. It put forward that the drawing of a firearm and the firing focused on the co-suspects S. T., and by (victim) may be difficult to otherwise
characterized as a

4. immediate unlawful assault.
The court rejected the defenses of the counselor, in view of the above consideration evidence, the documents and the court hearing, in interrelation and
cohesion. On this basis also not become plausible that there was an immediate unlawful assault, where necessary defense was offered. Already for this
reason can therefore be no question of self-defense (excess).
To the extent that occur in the proven facts portion of the charge language and / or write errors, these are corrected in the conclusive statement. The
suspect was not harmed in his defense.
Which laid under 16 / 110816-02 under 1 is borne primarily more or else is not proven. The accused must be acquitted them.
The Court bases its conviction that the accused has committed the facts found on the facts and circumstances contained in the evidence.
The criminality
Furthermore, no circumstance has become plausible that the criminality of the under 16/11081602 under 1 principally excludes proven, so that it is
illegal.
It provides the following offense to below 16 / 110816-02 under 1 primary proven.
Regarding 16 / 110816-02 one primary fact:
attempt to:
- theft, preceded violence against persons, committed with the intent to prepare for the theft,
in
- extortion,
when the offense is committed by has caused two or more persons or death.
The criminality of the accused
No circumstance has become plausible that excludes the criminal liability of the accused. The suspect is punishable.
Reason for the penalty to be imposed
In determining the penalty to be imposed, the court takes account of the seriousness of the offense, the circumstances under which it was committed and
the person of the accused.

5. As regards the seriousness of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed, the court specifically considered the following:
- Defendant and his co-perpetrators on December 21, 2002 in a house at the Mereveld Plein De Meern on refined and thoughtful manner attempted
(victim) to rob a large sum of money. Suspect had a financial interest in the implementation of the plan. Suspect is ignoring the risks that could entail the
plan. There has been close cooperation between the suspect and his co-defendants. One of the co-accused was in possession of a firearm and shot this
at least three times. Suspect and his co-defendants are thus not hesitated to use serious violence against fellow human beings and has accused the fate
of the victim apparently quite unconcerned;
- The result of this offense is that life is brutally denied to a young man and irreparable suffering to the relatives of the victim. Such an offense carries a
very shocking character and brings out the immediate vicinity of the victim feelings of great fear and insecurity triggered the law.
As for the person of the accused, the court having regard in particular to:
- the contents of a suspect respective extract from the general documentation register dated December 30, 2002, stating that the defendant has
previous convictions, most recently in respect of trading on April 6, 2001 in violation of the Weapons and Ammunition Act to imprisonment for a period of
9 months, 2 months suspended.
- An information report on the accused, the Probation Salvation Army, dated April 23
2003, prepared by Mr. M. Meijer, probation officer.
The prosecutor has asked for the hearing that the accused is acquitted offenses under parquet No. 16 / 029567-02 and in respect of the under 16 /
110816-02 under one primary and two alleged offense shall be sentenced to said- in brief:
- a prison sentence of 8 years minus pre-trial detention.
The court finds, in view of the nature and severity of the aforementioned fact and taking into account the person accused a suspended prison
sentence after reporting period appropriate and necessary.
Storage confiscated goods:
Regarding the seized object, namely:
- a CD-ROM,
the court will order the preservation of this article on behalf of the owner.
Restitution of confiscated goods:
Regarding the seized object, namely:
- Telephone, multi-colored, Nokia 3330,

6. the court shall order the return of accused, who this item is confiscated.
The application for enforcement of the conditional sentence
By final judgment of the magistrate in the court in Arnhem on April 6, 2001, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of nine months,
with two months suspended, with probation for two years and the condition that the convicted person for end of the probationary period shall not be guilty
of an offense.
According to a notification pursuant to Article 366a, second paragraph, of the Code of Criminal probation began on April 21, 2001.
The prosecutor now seeks an order that the implementation of that suspended sentence.
Now the offender is guilty of an offense again before the end of the probationary period, namely the above under parquet No. 16 / 110816-02 under one
primary proven fact, has violated the convicted aforementioned condition.
The court will order the implementation of that suspended sentence of two months.
The applicable legislation
The punishment to be imposed is based on Articles 14g, 45, 312 and 317 of the Penal Code.
THE DECISION:
The court ruled as follows:
Declares not proven that the accused prosecutor under number 16 / 110816-02 under 2 and under parquet No. 16 / 029567-02 under 1 and 2
committed alleged offense and acquits the defendant thereof.
Declares proven that the accused prosecutor under number 16 / 110816-02 under one primary alleged offense, as set out in Annex III of this judgment,
has committed.
Declares not proven that the accused prosecutor under number 16 / 110816-02 under one or more other primarily accused than above as proven
adoption and acquits the defendant thereof.
Declares that it is under the first primary proven criminal under parquet number 16 / 110816-02, and that this leads to the offense mentioned above.
Declares the accused therefore punishable.
Condemn the defendant to imprisonment for a period of 6 YEARS.
Recommends that the time the convict spent before the implementation of that decision and remand insurance entirely in the execution of the
sentence of imprisonment shall be deducted.
Ordered the detention of the CD-ROM for the owner.

7. Ordered to return the phone to suspicious.
Regarding parquet No. 21 / 002215-00:
Ordered the execution of imprisonment, large 2 months, provided that it is conditionally imposed by the judgment dated April 6,
2001.
This judgment was passed by Mr AH
Weijsenfeld, president,
ML van der Bel and FMD Aardema, judges, assisted by mr. A. van
Beek, Registrar
and pronounced at the public hearing of this court on September 12, 2003.