509hh Sv of the Soccer Law no success

Since the introduction of the Football Act, the Public Prosecutor can impose a code of conduct. In this article I explain what such a behavioural instruction means and what the objections to it are.

When the Football Act came into force in 2010, Article 509hh was also included in the Code of Criminal Procedure. This article allows the public prosecutor to impose the following behavioural instructions:
- Territory ban
- Contact ban
- Notification obligation
- Duty of assistance
The Public Prosecutor can impose an indication of behaviour on a suspect against whom there are serious objections (i.e. a strong suspicion) to a criminal offence:
a. as a result of which public order is seriously disrupted and where there is a serious fear of recurrence
b. in connection with which there is a fear of seriously prejudicial conduct by the accused towards persons
c. in connection with which there is a fear of serious aggravating behaviour on the part of the accused towards property

A code of conduct may be imposed for 90 days and may be extended three times by 90 days. Violation of the instruction is punishable. A suspect may challenge a behavioural instruction by lodging an appeal. The lawyers at our firm are well placed to draw up and file such an appeal. A hearing should take place as soon as possible in response to the notice of appeal.
There are two - major - objections to the notice of conduct. Firstly, the legal protection is not sufficient. Secondly, the police are unable to properly facilitate the duty to report. The legal protection is inadequate, because it often takes a long time before a notice of appeal against an instruction of conduct is dealt with by the district court. A notice of appeal does not have a suspensive effect. The instruction of conduct therefore remains in force despite the appeal lodged. As a result, suspects often have to report many times without having the opportunity to challenge the behavioural instructions. If it ultimately turns out that the instruction was wrongly imposed, a suspect does not receive any compensation.
Police stations appear to be poorly able to process a reporting obligation. For example, it regularly happens that the agency to which a suspect must report is not aware of the behavioural indication. Moreover, many desks are closed in the evenings, which means that suspects have to travel in order to report to the police.
I will give two practical examples.
Mr. A. was suspected of open assault. He was subject to a reporting obligation. Because the police station in the city where he lived was closed at night, he had to report to a desk in another city. This meant that he had to travel an hour there and an hour back by public transport. His lawyer filed an appeal. This was only dealt with after Mr. A. had come forward five times out of eight. The behavioral notice was lifted. In the end, the criminal case concerning the public assault was also dismissed. Mr A. applied for compensation, but was not compensated for damages, including travel expenses.

Mr. B. was also suspected of overt assault and was also subject to an obligation to report. However, the letter in which the duty to report was made known to him was sent to the wrong address. After two months Mr. B. was arrested and had to stay in the cell for one night. It was only the next morning that justice discovered the error. Mr. B. was released, but still received a mandatory notification. He had to report twice more. When he did, they had no idea what he was doing at the police station. As soon as he was handed out the duty to report, he appealed. However, the appeal could no longer be dealt with before the obligation to report was over.

Art. 509hh Sv does not provide sufficient legal protection and should therefore be revised.

Tags | Christian Visser, Code of Conduct, Duty to Report, Visser, Football Lawyer, Football Act