Public Prosecution Service adjusts policy after eavesdropping on Van Lienden and journalists

NOS News•today, 01:40

The Public Prosecution Service (OM) will adjust its rules for eavesdropping on suspects from next Wednesday, if it turns out that journalists also participate in the conversations they have. From May 1, an examining magistrate must always give prior permission to listen to and record confidential conversations. An examining magistrate is a judge who monitors whether the investigation by the Public Prosecution Service is proceeding lawfully.

The reason for the changed policy is a conversation that reporters from online magazine De Correspondent had in 2022 with the three former directors of the Auxiliary Alliance Foundation about the controversial ‘face mask deal’. Last year it turned out that that conversation had been tapped by the Public Prosecution Service, because a criminal investigation into Sywert van Lienden and his business partners was already underway. Editor-in-chief Rob Wijnberg of De Correspondent thought this was a violation of journalistic source protection and said he would go to court.

The Public Prosecution Service said in a response at the time that the eavesdropping was not aimed at the journalists, but only at the suspects, and that the prosecutors only knew shortly in advance that journalists would also participate in the conversation.

But, the Public Prosecution Service now says, “the course of events has raised questions among journalists, among others”, and so the rules are being tightened: not only must the examining magistrate now give permission for the eavesdropping, but also the chief public prosecutor and the The Board of Attorneys General, the leadership of the Public Prosecution Service, must agree in advance if journalists are involved in tapped conversations.

In a response to the ANP news agency, Wijnberg says he is happy with the changed rules, but will continue his lawsuit against the Public Prosecution Service. “The policy may be adjusted, but it is still not excluded that journalists are eavesdropped in conversations with sources.” It is not known when the case will be heard.