Report of the pre-trial review of 20 January 2010

Last Updated on Wednesday, 03 February 2010 17:12

The pre-trial review in the criminal case against Geert Wilders took place on Wednesday January 20 th, 2010. The pre-trial review was a public hearing that was held to insure that the deliberation of the criminal case takes place as effectively as possible. It was not a substantive deliberation of the case. The Court that will deliberate upon the case consists of Mr. J.W. Moors, LL M, (president), Mrs J.M.J. Lommen-van Alphen, LL M, and Mr. M.M. van der Nat, LL M.

During the pre-trial review Bram Moszkowicz, the lawyer of Geert Wilders, started with the elaboration on his preliminary objections. Two points were put forward:

1. The District Court in Amsterdam lacks jurisdiction

The law comprises multiple provisions that indicate which Court is competent to take cognisance of a case. Among other things the place where the fact is committed, where the suspect holds his domicile or residence and where the suspect is located when the writ of summons is served can play a role of importance upon the determination which Court has jurisdiction. The place where the offence was committed can also be used as a starting point; where is the act, on which the indictment has been based, committed.

Geert Wilders has no habitual domicile or residence in Amsterdam; he works in The Hague and also took receipt of the writ of summons in The Hague.

In the opinion of Geert Wilders and his lawyer there are no indications to have the case tried before the District Court in Amsterdam, Geert Wilders therefore holds that the District Court in Amsterdam lacks jurisdiction to try this case.

2. The Public Prosecutor is not allowed to prosecute with regard to counts 4 and 5 and partly count 1 to the extent that it regards the comparison with fascism

The Public Prosecutor broadened the charges with inciting to hatred/discrimination against non-western ethnic minorities and/or Moroccans on account of their race. The Court of Appeal did not authorise prosecution with regard to this complaint. The Public Prosecutor exceeded the prosecution authorisation of the Court of Appeal by including this complaint in the indictment. That is why Geert Wilders holds the Public Prosecutor not allowed to prosecute with regard to counts 4 and 5.

In its ruling the Court of Appeal actually indicated that the statements in which comparisons with Nazism (Mein Kampf) are made would be offensive to such extent that prosecution would be desirable. The Court of Appeal does by no means indicate that prosecution would be desirable for comparisons with fascism. Again the Public Prosecutor exceeded the prosecution authorisation of the Court of Appeal. That is why Geert Wilders and his lawyer are of the opinion that the decision of the Public Prosecutor to prosecute with regard to the comparison with fascism is inadmissible.

After these preliminary defences Bram Moszkowicz requested the District Court to be allowed to have 18 witnesses and/or experts summoned:

5 Freedom of speech experts:

• Prof. Zwart: Professor in Human Rights
• Prof. Sackers: Professor in Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law and Professor in Administrative Sanctions Law
• Prof. De Roos: Professor in Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law
• Prof. Ellian: Professor in Social Cohesion, Citizenship and Multiculturalism
• Prof. Sajo: Judge of the European Court of Human Rights
• The Public Prosecutor particularly agreed to have Prof. Zwart, Prof. Ellian and Prof. Sajo examined.

8 Islam experts:

• Prof. Jansen: Endowed Professor in Contemporary Islamic Thought
• Drs. Admiraal: Doctoral Candidate of Prof. Cliteur with the doctoral thesis: Islamisation, secular rule of law and the logic of radical indoctrination.
• Dr. Sultan: Author and well-known Islam critic. In 2006 she was mentioned by Time Magazine in the list of the 100 most influential people in the world.
• Prof. Israeli: Professor in Islamic, Middle-Eastern and Chinese History
• Mr Solomon: Former Professor in Sharia Legislation, former Sharia Justice
• Mr Warner: Author and Director of CSPI (Centre for the Study of Political Islam)
• Mr Spencer: Director of JihadWatch, author of nine books about the Islam and Jihad
• Prof. Bostom: Author in the area of Islam and author for FrontPage Magazine and American Thinker Magazine.

The Public Prosecutor had no objections to examining the witnesses, even though it did indicate that these witnesses all had one and the same expertise and examining some (not all) of the experts would be sufficient according to the Public Prosecutor.

5 ‘experiential experts’:

• Mr Bouyeri: Sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Theo van Gogh
• Mr Jneid: Imam at the Hague As-Soenah Mosque
• Mr Jannati: Chairman of the Guardian Council in the Islamic Republic of Iran
• Sheik Al-Quardawi: Egyptian Muslim fundamentalist, radical ideologist of the Muslim Brotherhood
• Ayatollah Yazdi: Student of Ayatollah Khomeini, spiritual leader of Islamic fundamentalists in Iran.
• The Public Prosecutor clearly indicated to object to examination of Mohammed Bouyeri.
• The Public Prosecutor indicated not to have any witnesses or experts to be summoned.

The Public Prosecutor intends to have Geert Wilders examined by the examining magistrate behind closed doors. On behalf of Geert Wilders Mr Moszkowicz stated that he would object to this. Geert Wilders would like to make a statement in Court, but is not interested in a hearing behind closed doors.