Court of Appeal publishes murder case judgment too early, ruling postponed

In association with

RTV Drenthe

NOS News•today, 11:14 PM

Four suspects who were supposed to be sentenced today for the murder of a 40-year-old man in 2012 will have to wait longer. The court in Leeuwarden accidentally published one of the judgments this morning, after which the lawyers of all suspects retaliated against the court.

The case revolves around the death of 40-year-old Jan Elzinga. He was shot dead in front of a swimming pool in Marum, Groningen in 2012. In 2012, two men were arrested: the shooter and the person who had given him instructions. They received prison sentences of fifteen and twenty years respectively.

But that wasn’t the end of the matter. The shooter made a deal with the Public Prosecution Service in prison and became a key witness. In exchange for a reduced sentence, he said that the victim’s in-laws had planned the murder. It concerns the victim’s ex-partner who, together with her brother and mother, allegedly ordered the murder. The fourth suspect is an intermediary who arranged the murder weapon.

In 2022, the criminal trial against the in-laws and their weapons supplier began. They were sentenced by the court to prison terms of up to twenty years, but subsequently appealed. At the end of February, the Public Prosecution Service again demanded prison sentences of between twelve and twenty years for the four.

Today would be the verdict in that appeal. However, the ruling against the suspected weapons supplier was published too early. According to one of the lawyers, this showed bias on the part of the court. He and the other three lawyers retaliated against the court.

The president of the court called the premature publication “appalling” and apologized this morning. “My jaw dropped,” said the man, a longtime judge. “I have already made thousands of statements, I have never experienced this before.”

The court does not accept the request for disqualification, but cannot necessarily make a ruling yet, writes RTV Drenthe. Such a request must always be processed according to the law. A so-called recusal chamber, consisting of other judges, decides on the request. The room was set up this afternoon.

The chamber met at the end of the afternoon, but the lawyer of one of the suspects felt that he had not been able to adequately prepare the recusal hearing. The recusal chamber then decided that the stakes in this case are too great to start the hearing without proper preparation. It was therefore decided to postpone it indefinitely.

If the chamber ultimately decides that the request for recusal is well-founded, the court’s counselors must be replaced. This means that the entire appeal must be done again.

The lawyer of the suspected weapons supplier calls the situation “bizarre”. “This is extremely special. I absolutely assume that the whole thing will have to be done again. I have no doubt about that.”