S3503569

Vlaicu Motrescu
Working group 2.2
Assignment 4, Law

1. True, as it states that no act or omission that did not constitute an offence under law at the time
it happened can be later punished by law should the law change.
2. Serious offences are severe in nature , have to be tried in first instance by a district court and
cannot be created by a lower administrative body. Summary offences are less serious in nature
and are tried in first instance by the subdistrict court. Attempts to commit summary offences are
not punishable by law, neither is it punishable to be an accessory to a summary offence.
3a. 1. A person who
2. intentionally and unlawfully
3. destroys, damages, renders unusable or causes to disappear
4. any property belonging in whole or in part to another
5. is liable to a term of imprisonment of not more than two years or a fine of the fourth
category
3b. This provision contains 4 criminal offences: destroying another’s property, damaging it,
rendering it unusable or causing it to disappear.
4a. Yes, he would, as he would still have the intention of transporting persons for a fee, even if
they would only accompany their belongings, therefore still fulfilling at least on component of
the crime.
4b. No, he won’t, as his intention when taking passengers is not to make them pay before
providing the services, but just to ask for a tip afterwards, which they can refuse, therefore there
is no obligatory payment and he is therefore not fulfilling at least one of the components of the
crime.
4c. No, he wouldn’t, as he wouldn’t stay in the road with the sign, but in his driveway, on his
private property.
4d. No, he wouldn’t, as his T-ford is not a vehicle pulled by draught animals, therefore not
fulfilling at least one component of the crime.
5a. Necessity force majeur, art. 40 Sr; Self-defence, art. 41(1) Sr; Performance of a legal duty,
art. 42 Sr; Compliance with authorized official order, art. 43(1) Sr; Necessity-duress, art. 40 Sr;
Unreasonable or improper use of self-defence, art. 41(2) Sr; Mental disorder of the offender, art.
39 Sr; Compliance with unauthorized official order, art. 43(2) Sr.
5b. Yes there are: Absence of substantive unlawfulness, which means the act in itself was not
made unlawful by a statutory law, and absence of all guilt, which means that the accused is in no
way guilty of the criminal act.
6. Necessity-force majeur and Necessity-duress.
7. Intent can take 3 forms: first, willful intent, where the criminal commits a criminal act fully
aware of the consequences and fully desires those consequences to happen. The second,
foreseeable consequences, is when the criminal is aware of a high probability of certain unlawful
consequences happening and still decides to do the act, and the third, recklessness, is when the
criminal simply chooses to ignore any precaution as to any foreseeable dangerous consequences.
8. No, as article 310 Sr only states that the taking of another’s property can be punished, not the
attempt to do so, and even if he had done it, according to article 316(2), he could only have been
prosecuted if his mother would have filed a complaint.
9. Not true, as per art. 289 Sr, which covers murder, and states that the maximum sentence is 30
years of imprisonment or a fine of the fifth category, so it could be higher. It could also be lower,
as the Dutch Criminal Law system has only maximum sentences, but the sentences on individual
cases could be milder.
10a. The Public Prosecutor’s Office, which submits the cases to the court and decides whom to
prosecute and for what offences.
10b. Where the case is to be dismissed because the prosecutor no longer has the right to
prosecute; where the evidence against the accused is manifestly insufficient; where the act does
not constitute a criminal offence; when the accused is not liable.
10c. The Procurator-General, who prosecutes members of the Parliament, ministers and deputy
ministers for criminal offences committed in the exercise of their function. An order to prosecute
has to given either by Royal Decree or by decision of the Lower House.
11. That is true. The judge has the duty to determine the substantive truth, as opposed to
negotiable truth in common law systems such as the US.
12a. 1. Validity of the summons; 2. Competence of the court; 3. Prosecutor’s right to institute
proceedings; 4. Ground for suspension or prosecution.
12b. 1. Declaring the charge invalid or not; 2. Determining that the court is competent or not; 3.
Determining if the prosecutor has the right to institute proceedings or not; 4. Determining if there
are reasons to suspend the case or not.
13. That is not true. There are several conditions which might exempt a person from being
convicted such as them being under 12 years of age or being mentally incapable of being held
accountable in front of the law.
14. That is true, as the validity of the writ of summons is decided upon after the first preliminary
question, while the acquittal can only be given after the fifth preliminary question, therefore the
writ of summons must be declared valid before that.
15. True, as a verdict of dismissal of charges must be given only when the proven facts are
accepted and the accused party is proven to either not have fulfilled all the components of a
statutory offence, or if he is not punishable for said acts, but the facts in the writ of charges must
still be proven to be true.
16. No it is not, as a criminal offence has to be first and foremost tried in a criminal court, and
the criminal accused by the public prosecutor. After he has been tried in a criminal court, he can
not be tried again for the same act, as that would be a case of double jeopardy, which is
prohibited as of art. 68(1) Sr.