Richard de Mos's lawyers leave no stone unturned by OM: 'They have totally fallen through the ice'
They came on the attack, and it showed: in their defense of politicians Richard de Mos and Rachid Guernaoui in the appeal of the Hague corruption affair, lawyers Peter Plasman and Jordi L'Homme make mincemeat of the prosecution. "They have made a very big mess of it."
An advance warning. People in The Hague courtroom probably didn't count on that. But the lawyers of politicians Richard de Mos and Rachid Guernaoui began their plea in the appeal of the Hague corruption affair with it. And no one who will have thought some four hours later: why really?
It is not counsel Peter Plasman, but his office colleague Jordi L'Homme who is pulling the chestnuts out of the fire. "In this plea hard words will be spoken about the actions of the public prosecutor," he says on day four of the appeal in the corruption case against the two Hague politicians and five suspected entrepreneurs. "Rock-hard words."
The lawyer lets out an appropriate silence. Then: "The public prosecutor has made a very big mess of things, has been extremely careless, has failed to keep promises made, acts misleadingly where its criticism of the judgment of the Rotterdam District Court is concerned, disqualifies this court, puts your court under pressure in an improper manner, and obviously lets its own interests prevail."
And then it all has yet to begin.
Professional ban and monetary penalties
Last Tuesday plaintiffs claimed suspended prison sentences, fines of up to 10,000 euros and community service penalties against the seven suspects in the Richard de Mos corruption case. For the former aldermen of The Hague, the requirement of years of professional prohibition was added.
But according to the defense, it should not have come to that point at all. The argument of Plasman and L'Homme is essentially simple. Their clients have already been acquitted at first instance and the prosecution should never have been allowed to appeal. For hours, the courtroom debated the reasons why the Court of Appeal should declare the appeal inadmissible.
