On September 9, four suspects appeared in court for (attempting to) cause explosions in Alkmaar in 2024. The Public Prosecution believes it has proven that a now 20-year-old man from Amsterdam, together with others, set fire (or attempted to) to two homes in Alkmaar on February 1, 2024, using an explosive. The prosecutor demanded 20 months of juvenile detention, a ban on contact with co-defendants, and a location ban for the municipality of Alkmaar. Three others, a now 20-year-old man from Buren and two men aged 19 and 20 from Utrecht, are said to have jointly placed a firework bomb on February 4, 2024, at another home in Alkmaar. Since the explosive did not go off, it remained an attempted arson. The Public Prosecution demanded 14 months of juvenile detention for the suspect from Buren, of which 4 months are conditional, and a ban on contact with co-defendants; for the suspects from Utrecht, the Public Prosecution demanded 30 months of imprisonment, of which 6 months are conditional and a ban on contact with co-defendants.
Background
At the beginning of 2024, Alkmaar was once again shaken by a series of explosions or attempts thereof. In such cases, there is almost always an underlying criminal conflict, in which those involved cause damage to each other and put pressure on each other by detonating firework/fuel combinations at homes. Not infrequently, such bombs go off at wrong addresses, where people live who have nothing to do with the conflict.
Role distribution
Suspects have different roles in such cases: client, main broker (approaches contacts for carrying out tasks, arranges necessary supplies, and makes appointments), intermediary (approaches contacts at the request of the main broker for carrying out tasks, arranges necessary supplies), or executor (explosives layer and/or person who must film the action as evidence that the assignment has been carried out). This pattern is also visible in the Alkmaar cases. In these, the suspect from Amsterdam played the role of intermediary in the explosions on February 1, 2024: he arranged the executors, maintained contact with the executors (including regarding payment), and provided them with the addresses. In the attempted arson on February 4, 2024, the 20-year-old suspect from Utrecht, according to the Public Prosecution, played the role of intermediary, the other two that of executor.
Evidence
The suspects are, according to the Public Prosecution, guilty of the facts based on, among other things, camera images, forensic research, statements from witnesses and co-defendants, and research on seized data carriers. For example, there are Snapchat conversations secured in which the suspects exchanged information about which addresses explosions were to take place, in what order that should happen, that the actions should be filmed, and where the money could be picked up. The statement from the suspect from Amsterdam, that he was pressured to commit the act, the Public Prosecution dismisses as a fairy tale. The prosecutor: ‘Based on the evidence, especially the mutual communication between suspects, it is clear that the suspect has had a very active coordinating role in the facts charged against him. The content of the chat traffic shows nothing that any pressure was exerted on him. He was given free rein in arranging explosives, executors, and payments.’
Severity
The facts for which the suspects stood trial are part of a series of explosions that long held Alkmaar in its grip. The severity of the incidents, their rapid succession, and the various addresses/targets have led to great unrest. The prosecutor: ‘Residents meetings have been organized to restore calm, parts of neighborhoods have been designated as security risk areas, there has been permanent camera surveillance in those areas, the Public Prosecution has decided to conduct preventive searches, and the police have frequently patrolled to curb the danger. It is intolerable that the suspects - solely for the sake of the promised reward - have taken the danger of their actions, the fear of the victims, and the enormous damage for granted.’
Demands
Because the suspects were just of legal age at the time of the offenses, the Public Prosecution decided, on the advice of experts, to apply juvenile criminal law to two of them. Against the man from Amsterdam, the Public Prosecution demanded 20 months of juvenile detention, a ban on contact with co-defendants, and a location ban for the municipality of Alkmaar. Because the suspect at the time of the explosions in Alkmaar was still in a probation period of a conditional PIJ measure that was also imposed for identical offenses, the prosecutor also requests the execution of that measure.
Against the 20-year-old man from Buren, the Public Prosecution demanded 14 months of juvenile detention, of which 4 months are conditional with a probation period of two years and a ban on contact with co-defendants. Against the two suspects from Utrecht, the Public Prosecution demanded 30 months of imprisonment, of which 6 months are conditional with a probation period of two years and a ban on contact with co-defendants.