'THERE IS NO JUSTICE ONLY LIMITS.' ALBERT CAMUS
When is he going to ask? He could have announced it today, couldn't he?
Yeah... He's probably waiting until the annual results are announced, eh?
Everyone will be there and it'll be a bit more official then too.
What will you do about Lambrechts' offer?
They ignored me for years.
Now they're in the shit, they suddenly want me and are waving money at me.
- I'm not that kind of guy. - No, you're not that kind of guy.
- No, you have principles. - Yes.
- You're predictable too. - Carry on.
- And a decent person. - And boring.
- Boring? Boring. - Boring is seriously underrated.
- That's true. - Wonderful, eh?
We're going home, princess.
- No. - Yes.
Are you keeping an eye on your crown prince?
- When are you going to tell him? - We're having lunch tomorrow.
- I'll ask him officially then. - Oh, right.
- It was fantastic. - Thank you.
- Really. - Anna has had a great time.
- Yes. - Thank you.
- Did you enjoy yourself? - Yes.
- Not too tired? - I'm never tired.
- Never tired.
She's asleep.
Want some?
- Go on. - No.
Delicious, eh?
- I'm just going to get a loaf. - OK.
Your money, please.
Daddy?
THE VERDICT
Luc?
Ella?
- Luc. - I want to... want to see Ella.
- You have... - What?
You have been in a coma for three weeks.
The doctors didn't know when you would wake up. Or even if you would wake up.
- We didn't have a choice. - Ella? Ella?
We had to let the funeral go ahead.
There were no cameras in the shop
and there are no usable images from the petrol station's CCTV.
In the corner of one we do get a glimpse of a motorbike driving off,
but the number plate is illegible and we can't tell the exact type of bike.
There are so many foot- and fingerprints in the shop
that not a single one is clear.
They weren't very fussy about cleaning. And we don't have any witnesses.
Except for you, of course.
Given the arbitrariness and brutality of what happened,
it is highly likely that whoever did it is known to us. I mean...
That sort of violence is rarely a one-off. It doesn't suddenly happen.
Someone like that probably has other violent crimes to his name.
And...
Kenny De Groot.
Shhh. Quiet!
- Federal Police! - Police! Stop!
Hands in the air!
Arms in the air!
A scumbag with a long criminal record.
Robbery, robbery with violence, handling stolen goods, drunken brawls...
A repeat offender. In and out of prison.
I'd get a good lawyer, if I were you. A criminal lawyer.
It's not my thing. I go after customers who don't pay their bills.
I read contracts.
Don't forget, it may look like a simple case but there is no such thing.
- There are no direct witnesses. - What about me?
- Impartial witnesses. - For goodness' sake!
The bottom line?
Robbery with murder, with a life sentence, will be difficult.
Difficult? Her handbag was left on the ground in shreds.
That's the point. Technically it can only be robbery with murder
if the perpetrator actually took something and he didn't in this case.
Manslaughter is a possibility but assault leading to death is more realistic.
Maximum sentence is ten years. I don't think he can expect a reduced sentence,
so there's a good chance he will be behind bars for at least six years.
Six years?
I think so.
What about Anna?
Well...
Technically speaking, Anna was... an accident.
An accident?
An accident.
And we shouldn't underestimate our opponents.
Have you, for example, wondered
how come a shady, small-time mechanic like Kenny De Groot
can afford an ambitious and talented lawyer like Miss Teugels?
Look, Mr Segers. With your correct income, your correctly declared income,
you have to bear the legal costs yourself.
Unlike lots of criminals who, and this won't surprise you,
don't have a correctly declared income and therefore receive legal aid.
And contrary to what you may think, legal aid lawyers don't do it for love,
nor are they driven by unstoppable, irrepressible idealism.
They send their rather substantial bill to the State.
Which is why in cases that will be in the papers, cases like yours,
the perpetrators can afford a prominent barrister like Miss Teugels.
That sounds rather cynical, Mr De Cock.
I would say realistic. Pragmatic.
Look. You are paying me to guide you through this minefield.
So it is my job to tell you where the mines are.
Mr Segers. Luc.
I am not going to say that I know how you feel.
I don't know and, to be honest, I hope I never do.
But I do know I've met lots of people in a similar situation to you.
And, as incredible as this may sound, lots of them eventually move on.
A trial also helps you come to terms with it, gives you closure.
The justice you are seeking and will get, I promise,
will help you find peace.
Otherwise there is no point you starting this.
Thank you.
Luc? Why don't you come and stay with us for a while?
De Groot? Come with me. Your lawyer is here.
I've got some good news.
And, as Prosecutor General, you go along with this argument?
That's true, yes. Thank you for calling me.
A procedural error?
What exactly is a procedural error?
Well... the law is complex. All kinds of strict rules have been incorporated
to prevent arbitrary arrest or detention.
Those rules are there with good reason. They protect the innocent, of course,
but the guilty can occasionally use them too and that is what has happened now.
The guy killed my wife. He was arrested and is behind bars.
- What has procedure got to do with it? - Well, that's the problem.
The Public Prosecutor's request that the examining magistrate investigates
a suspect in a criminal case,
in this case so Kenny De Groot could be arrested for what happened to your wife.
My wife's murder, you mean. Yeah, yeah.
Your wife's murder. Well, that document wasn't signed by the Public Prosecutor.
Forgetfulness, absent-mindedness, who knows?
Either way there was no signature on it.
Right. And?
Well, if the request for an investigation isn't signed,
that document is not legally valid.
So all activities or investigations as a result of that document are not legal.
Bloody listen to yourself!
What kind of theoretical crap is that?
And no one had noticed until now?
Well, the reality is that judges are drowning in paperwork
and so only read the documents that are relevant to them.
The only person who reads an entire file in detail is the procedure lawyer
and Mr De Groot has a good one.
So now what?
The error made is regarded by legislators as being so fundamental
that all activity arising from it must be declared invalid.
A signature is missing on a little piece of paper. So what?
The judges have recommended that the suspect be released.
What?
Later on today. At 5 p.m.
I'm sorry.
On the judges' instructions the suspect was released at 5 o'clock today.
No reaction from the Public Prosecutor
but the released suspect's lawyer gave a short statement.
Law and procedures must be adhered to.
Firstly by those responsible for their application.
These rules guarantee the correct administration ofjustice.
And these rules are neither flexible nor negotiable.
I imagine lots of people at home are wondering how come this could happen.
Yes, and understandably.
It isn't the first time someone has been released
or even found not guilty due to a procedural error.
But this is particularly upsetting
as it is essentially due to the lack of a signature on one document.
Has the suspect now been released for good?
The legal expression is that the criminal action is dismissed.
The Public Prosecutor's department can still bring action
but if the evidence collected at the time of arrest is declared invalid
then it becomes a problem.
Has there been any reaction from the Minister of Justice?
Yes, and we've heard it before.
I cannot comment on this specific case, of course.
There is a separation of powers in this country.
But I do understand the general public's indignation.
I can only repeat that my department has been busy computerizing the...
A WEEK LATER.
- Everything OK? - Yes.
- No. Sorry. I mean... - I know what you mean. Thank you.
Everyone feels so sorry for you, Luc.
But they don't know how to talk to you, what to say.
Sometimes I don't know what to say either, so I can't blame them, eh?
I'm glad you came. People have been asking after you.
Dear friends...
Our company can, certainly on a day like today,
look back on the past with satisfaction.
But it is, above all, the job of a company and it's CEO
to look to the future.
And, in order to better prepare Puype Logistics for the challenges
with which it will be faced in the years, the decades to come,
it is now time for this old soldier
to step aside
and, with the utmost confidence, hand over control to a younger man,
a man with experience, appetite, vision, talent
and, importantly, drive.
Dear friends, it gives me great pleasure to introduce you to our new CEO...
Wim De Vos!
Thank you.
- May I? - Of course.
- Luc, I hope... - You are the right man for the job.
If I were Karel, I would have made the same choice given the circumstances.
Thanks. That means a lot to me, it really does.
I just wanted to say that the company has a lot to thank you for
and we will have to have a chat about how you see things.
There's a great job coming up in Dubai and now you...
- How shall I put it? - Now I no longer have any ties.
Yes. No, no. I don't mean it like that. But...
maybe a change of location would do you good. A change of air.
I'll think about it. But I don't think I will do it.
I feel that I, how can I put it, haven't quite finished here yet.
OK.
I'm always here for you, if you need anything.
OK.
OK... see you later.
DE GROOT AUTO REPAIRS
AUTO REPAIRS
Karel says you haven't been answering your mobile phone for days.
Is everything OK, Luc?
That's the second time you've asked me that question. It's still a stupid one.
No, everything isn't OK. I want it to be but it isn't. Thank you.
- Where did you go yesterday? - To work.
No. You didn't go to work yesterday. Or the day before.
And when you are there, it is as if you are not.
- Is it? - Everyone is worried.
And that includes me.
You weren't at home either.
Did you follow me?
No. I was waiting outside your door. I waited a long time.
Does Karel know you follow me?
Shouldn't you be with the other wives of captains of industry,
doing things for charity? Like lunching for Africa or something?
You aren't going to do anything stupid, are you?
What do you mean by anything stupid?
Joining my wife and child? Yeah.
There's not a single second in the day that I don't think about that.
I fall asleep hurting, I wake up hurting.
Some people avoid me because they think grief is infectious or something.
Or because they think it's time I stopped, life carries on.
Time heals all wounds, eh? And I've still got so much to live for.
That's true, eh?
When I ask them what,
they look at me as if to say: 'You're not supposed to ask that.
We are just making an effort to be polite.' OK. Thank you.
But it doesn't work like that, Louise.
Maybe it does if your grandpa of 91 passed peacefully away in his sleep.
But not if your wife's murderer is still on the loose because some clown...
forgot to sign a bit of paper.
Then it doesn't work.
I can't expect you to understand what I mean. No one does.
I'm right in the fucking middle of it and I don't understand it either.
So, in short, everything isn't OK.
Sorry.
Sorry, Louise. Sorry.
The figures presented at the annual meeting were certainly positive.
RELEASED LAUGHING
34 CASES POSSIBLY AFFECTED BY PROCEDURAL ERROR
TEN HARDENED CRIMINALS LEAVE PRISON CHEERING
AUTO REPAIRS
The foreign visitors are being shown round Westminster Abbey by Ernest Maple
and stop by the tomb of a very famous lawyer.
And he says: 'Look. Here lies a great lawyer and an honest man.'
And one visitor asks: 'Do they bury two people in one grave in your country?'
Thank you.
Gentlemen... we have a problem.
Yes.
Bloody hell.
I have to consult the Prosecutor General but I assume he won't want a fuss.
Maybe, I'm saying maybe, we can go for manslaughter.
No way. Murder.
A court with a jury of my peers. Because I do want a fuss.
I've dealt with De Groot, now it's the turn of the system.
We have just heard that the perpetrator did not resist arrest.
He has been formally identified as Luc Segers.
His wife was killed by the victim last month, remember, Stef?
During a shop robbery that went wrong.
His daughter was also tragically killed at the same time.
And Kenny De Groot was released due to a procedural error.
No one is commenting at present. Neither the Public Prosecutor's department
nor the Minister of Justice's office.
Anyone got a suggestion regarding what I should say to the media?
- Well? - I'd be as neutral as possible.
Right. And say that there is a separation of powers?
I have complete confidence in our justice system?
The guy's wife and child were murdered by a scumbag that you released.
Those sort of remarks are totally uncalled for, Minister.
Even behind closed doors. You should know better.
This is about one man who killed another man.
And that is all that matters. All the rest is just politics and drivel.
I wasn't elected. I never spout drivel.
Certainly not about our constitutional state, the only kind I want to live in.
If our constitutional state isn't perfect, Minister,
that means democracy isn't perfect.
But of all the systems we've tried, it seems to be the least bad.
So it's either this, or open the gates to the barbarians.
Luc Segers will be tried for what he did because that is how it should be.
Honestly, Jacques. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Do you really think you are going to find a jury that will convict the man?
Have you seen the comments on the papers' forums? That's just the start.
No. And I don't have to read them. It's not part of my job description.
Besides, we've experienced a lot worse, eh?
300,000 staged a demonstration, remember? The White March.
The Huge Public Outcry. The People's Revolution.
Where are they now? The political party failed and there are only 300 left.
People are disgruntled anyway, regardless.
About the public money paid to support the Royal Family.
About Balkan countries voting for each other at the Eurovision Song Contest.
About the expensive absurdity of modern art, for Christ's sake!
As long as they can be angry. It doesn't matter what about.
But OK. Let them be angry.
The dogs bark but the caravan goes on. Because the caravan has no choice.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
The minister will make a brief statement but questions will not be taken.
I repeat, the minister will make a statement
but there will be no questions.
Good morning.
As a human being and as a father, I find yesterday's events regrettable.
But let me make one thing clear, no one in this country is above the law.
The law and its application is what stands between order and chaos.
And chaos isn't an option. Which is why we have a separation of powers.
I am confident our justice system will deal with this delicate case correctly.
- Thank you. - No, no, no. No questions.
I greatly regret yesterday's events...
My client has a fixed abode.
There is no danger of him doing it again or absconding.
Mr Segers has also expressed the wish to appear before a jury of his peers.
I ask the court to grant him bail to allow him to prepare for his trial.
Given all the submitted arguments and the huge commotion round this case,
the suspect will remain in custody.
OK. Thank you.
Listen, Walter.
It's up to us to shine like a diamond in a dung heap. OK?
I'm counting on you. I want zero,
I repeat zero, errors, slovenliness or loose ends
that will blow up in our face within the year. OK?
We won't let the constitutional state be made to look like a jerk.
The constitutional state can't afford that, so neither can we.
You're the examining magistrate. Do you understand?
- Yes, sir. - Good.
I've heard you have put yourself forward to become a justice.
- Yes. - You can't spend your entire career
as an examining magistrate, eh?
I'll see you get the results of the investigation as soon as possible.
Fine. I'll look forward to it. And don't forget to give my regards
- to your lovely wife. - Right.
It's all rather simple, in fact.
The gun was found at the scene with the perpetrator's fingerprints on it.
The motive is pretty clear in this case.
Questioning the locals revealed he's been planning it for some time.
Premeditated. What is known as an open-and-shut case.
What are they going to do?
What do you mean?
Don't you read the papers? That guy is a hero.
Yes.
Do you think so too?
No. No. But I can understand that others do.
They should never have let De Groot go in the first place.
Look, Alain. It's not about choices.
If Segers goes free, we can forget the rule of law,
we'll be back in the Far West.
I've never sided with the cowboys, Wouter. Always the Indians.
Right. The Indians lost in the end.
I can't wish you good luck, you know.
Just fortitude.
What intrigues me, and this is for Mr De Cock, the lawyer,
any parent whose child has been harmed says they will get the man or woman.
But this man did it. What makes Mr Segers different from those people?
The others were served by the law, to a greater or lesser extent.
Mr Segers was let down disgracefully by our justice system.
So could it be said that we should give Mr Segers credit
for exposing the weaknesses of our justice system?
I can assure you,
Mr Segers would much rather have given that pleasure to someone else.
Enjoy it.
Mr Segers, if there is anything... if I can do anything for you...
Thank you.
AUTO REPAIRS
KENNY DE GROOT'S GARAGE BURNT TO THE GROUND
What if it gets even more out of hand?
As far as I know, the victim only worked in one garage.
I don't think ten more hovels will go up in flames.
What shall we do? About the fire?
What can we do? Follow procedures. Let the police do their job.
Or is a burnt-out garage also the fault of a failing justice system?
No. Our priority is clear, it seems to me, Walter.
And that priority is Luc Segers.
A man has been killed and we know who did it.
The most boring game of Cluedo ever. It's that simple.
We'll ask for 30 years. Not life. Due to extenuating circumstances.
And Luc Segers should go down on his bended knee and thank us.
Right.
Luc Segers has put a bomb under the system.
And we are going to defuse that bomb.
Two options. The first is safest as the court will follow our lead.
I plead provocation. Then you risk maximum five years.
Minus extenuating circumstances. Minus time in custody
and minus the king's Christmas bonus. You'll be inside for less than 2 years.
Why do you think the jury will agree?
Because everyone wins. They can't afford an acquittal, of course.
That would be a disgrace and life-threatening for the rule of law.
On the other hand they won't want to incense public opinion by going all out.
Provocation provides the elegant solution of finding you guilty
without punishing you too hard. Everyone wins.
What if I don't want everyone to win? What if I want them to lose?
That's option two. Article 71. Irresistible impulse. Risky.
Why?
It is pleaded almost exclusively in cases of crimes of passion.
Decent, hard-working husband
who discovers his wife has been cheating on him with the neighbour
and she tells him with a smirk that she's leaving him
and taking the kids, the savings and the plasma TV.
Not necessarily in that order.
A red mist descends over the decent husband's eyes, he picks up a knife
and pricks 37 holes in the adulterous witch. Article 71.
The sort of case that a clever barrister can win while picking his nose. But...
irresistible impulse is a momentary thing. A flash.
And that is difficult to reconcile with premeditation. Planning.
Difficult or impossible?
Luc, I'm assuming the jury will want to help you.
But you have to make it possible for them. Give them an alibi.
And provocation is the perfect alibi.
That is not good enough. Not losing...
isn't good enough. I want to win.
Win.
Luc. As your lawyer, I have to tell you.
You will encounter serious opposition in court.
Article 71 is a serious step, even for a sympathetic jury.
If they find you guilty, you risk life.
Is that a risk you want to take?
Yes, that is a risk I want to take.
10 MONTHS LATER.
The jury was selected at the end of last week.
The trial of Luc Segers starts tomorrow.
Would we be right to describe it as an historic trial?
You always have to be careful with words like historic.
But I think this is an historic case in Belgian legal history.
The justice system is under considerable strain again, eh?
Hasn't that always been the case, to be honest?
The justice system does sometimes fail and procedural errors are made
with far-reaching consequences that undermine confidence in the system.
But there is also the trial. And in this trial the evidence is clear.
It is up to the Court of Assize to administer justice.
We've got the result of the opinion poll. What does the Belgian public say?
71% think that Luc Segers should be acquitted.
And 24% say he is guilty. So... What do you say to that?
Lots of people shouting the same thing loudly doesn't mean they are right.
Fantastic. We'll be back after the break.
After the toilet break we've got the oldest...
Bring in the accused.
DAY 1
Mrs De Meuter, you live in the house opposite Kenny De Groot's garage?
Yes, sir. When I look out my window I can see everything that goes on there.
Not that I do that. That would be... I've got other things to do.
Did you ever notice the accused, Luc Segers, in the vicinity of the garage?
Yes. When I went to the shop, I always go to the one on the corner
because it has fresh vegetables, I sometimes passed the gentleman.
He was sitting there in his car. Just sitting there. Looking.
How many times did you see him there?
Three or four times.
I noticed him because he was in a really smart car.
I thought to myself that I hoped he stayed in it, otherwise...
In that neighbourhood...
When was the last time you saw him, Mrs De Meuter?
Well, that was the day of... of the murder.
I heard a couple of very, very loud bangs and went over to the window
and saw him, Mr Segers, come out and sit down on the pavement.
I thought: 'Why on earth has he sat down on the pavement?'
Mrs De Meuter, how well did you know Kenny De Groot?
Not very well. The man didn't have much to do with the locals.
- But you had spoken to him? - No, actually. To be honest I...
To be honest I was scared of him. And not just me.
- The whole neighbourhood was. - How come?
How shall I put it?
He had a reputation.
What kind of reputation?
Mr De Cock, I've allowed you to question the witness at the start of the trial.
I would like to remind you that it is a privilege that I can withdraw.
- Do you have any more specific questions? - No further questions. Thank you.
- Miss Teugels? - Yes.
Mrs De Meuter, did you ever have a disagreement with Mr De Groot?
Uhhh... no.
- Did he ever threaten you physically? - No.
- Threaten you verbally? - No.
Shout at you? Insult you? Look menacingly at you?
- No. - So may I advise you, madam,
not to judge people on the basis of rumours and gossip.
That will do, Miss Teugels.
So there is no possible doubt?
No. The accused confessed and the evidence at the scene confirmed it.
Right. Thank you. No further questions, Your Honour.
Mr De Cock? I assume the defence has some questions?
Thank you.
You were one of the first on the scene straight after the murder
- at De Groot Garage, is that correct? - Yes.
Where was the accused, Mr Segers, at that time?
Mr Segers was in the police van, handcuffed and guarded by two policemen.
What did you do then?
I went over to him. We know each other. We'd met before.
Can you tell us about the circumstances
in which you met Mr Segers for the first time?
I met Mr Segers during the investigation of his wife's murder.
Mr Vercauteren, your choice of words is highly charged and tendentious.
I must ask you to use the legal qualification
that was applied at the time, namely
grievous bodily harm without intending to kill but leading to death.
I apologise. My mistake.
Initially it was a murder investigation. Hence my confusion.
Thank you, Your Honour, for the... correction.
So you knew the accused.
How would you describe the man you saw at Kenny De Groot's garage that day?
He seemed sort of faraway. As if there were a sort of mist over his eyes.
It was as if he were out of it. But not due to drink or drugs.
And when he saw me it was as if he...
- woke up. - Mr De Cock, please.
Mr Vercauteren is not a psychiatrist and so not competent.
But I did spend more time with Mr Segers than your psychiatrist.
Mr Vercauteren, please stick to answering the questions.
I am trying to but I keep being interrupted.
Thank you. No further questions.
It is a trial that has gripped the general public
and is also being followed closely in the media and the world of politics.
- Back to you. - Thank you.
You will, of course, be following the Segers trial for us.
The trial of the good murderer.
Good murderer? They don't know their Bible.
Here in the studio with us is our legal expert Faroek Özgünes.
Faroek, I think we can safely say that, whatever the verdict,
this trial will certainly leave deep marks.
Definitely, because, in fact, a parallel trial is going on at the same time.
A trial behind the scenes of the justice system.
The judiciary has been untouchable in its ivory tower for years.
But is now under mounting pressure from public opinion.
The legal profession and the judiciary will have to think seriously about this.
Thank you. We are waiting for a reaction from the Minister of Just...
Of course. I wondered when that would come. The bastards.
He does not wish to comment at present.
Only one expert isn't very many, is it?
Normally it wouldn't be, but in this case the expert is
an alibi we're offering the jury
so they can rationally convert their sympathy for you
into a not guilty verdict.
If we assume they want to acquit you, that is sufficient motivation.
- Anything else I can do? - Not really. Just be there tomorrow.
OK.
DAY 2
Thanks.
Court rise.
Good morning, everyone. The accused may be brought in.
So, professor, is the accused of sound mind, in your professional opinion?
- Certainly. - That means he was fully aware
- of everything he did? - Correct.
Thank you. No further questions, Your Honour.
Mr De Cock, I assume you have some questions.
Yes indeed, Your Honour.
Professor De Bats, you have just described Mr Segers as, and I quote,
an intelligent, normal man who has experienced an emotional trauma.
An emotional trauma sounds rather serious.
There are many forms of trauma, of emotional trauma.
In Mr Segers' case it is in the form of severe grief with traumatic features.
Shock caused by the violence he himself experienced
and an inability to come to terms with events.
I won't underestimate any of that
but both the evidence and my examination have clearly shown
that Mr Segers, who is of above-average intelligence, is of sound mind.
In other words, responsible for his actions.
For the full 100%?
Psychology is not mathematics. It's not an exact science.
- We do not offer guarantees. - So not for the full 100%?
Mr De Cock, Professor De Bats has answered your question.
If you have no further questions...
Professor De Bats, or should I say emeritus professor?
Because you have been retired for a while, or am I mistaken?
- I don't see... - How long since you worked as one?
Retirement for a professor is probably rather different
- from that for people in your profession. - No further questions, Your Honour.
There are numerous cases in medical literature
of soldiers in situations of extreme exhaustion and bitter fighting,
but also of ordinary people suffering from
psychological trauma caused by brutal violence,
who experience restricted awareness for a long period of time.
The body, when suffering physical pain, switches off locally or completely.
Unconsciousness is the most specific example.
And so does the mind. Psychological suffering can cause a system shutdown.
The person in question still appears to function
but is only partly aware or totally unaware of what they are doing.
In your professional opinion, your active professional opinion,
does Mr Segers represent a permanent danger to society?
No, his trauma has been removed, as it were.
The grief, the coming to terms with what happened, a long and difficult
and perhaps never-ending process, remain but he is not a danger to society.
You are familiar with Article 71 of the Belgian Criminal Code?
It refers to irresistible impulse. To be specific:
Does this article apply to Mr Segers, in your opinion?
In my opinion... Yes.
Thank you. No further questions, Your Honour.
I suspect one of the other parties wishes to respond to this.
- Miss Teugels? - No, thank you, Your Honour.
- Procurator General? - Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
I have... listened very carefully, Mr De Weers,
and I find your theory very fascinating. I would like to read more about it.
Can you recommend any scientific publications supporting your view?
Or fellow professors of the same opinion who can explain it further?
Psychology is an area that is constantly changing
and there can never be unanimity, of course, but...
I asked if they exist, Mr De Weers. Yes or no will suffice.
- No, but this specific... - Thank you. No further questions.
We will now adjourn for lunch and will resume at 2 p.m.
- The accused may be removed. - Court rise.
It is a Walther P5, 9mm. A German gun. It cannot be obtained without a permit.
It was the standard issue gun of the Dutch police from 1979 to 2013.
It is also very popular among Eastern European criminals.
Because it is very accurate
and, in spite of its large calibre, is quite small and easy to handle.
Mr Lachaert, one more question.
You referred to a gun that was easy to use. What did you mean?
What I said, that it is easy to handle.
Right. I am a total layman, could you be more specific?
For example, it doesn't have a safety catch or much of a recoil.
It's a semi-automatic gun, so you don't have to reload after each shot.
You can continue firing it until the magazine is empty.
And that was the case. The magazine was empty.
Yes. The magazine takes eight bullets and all eight were fired.
In your expert opinion, were these aimed shots?
What do you mean?
I mean there were bullet holes everywhere. In the wall, in the mirror.
Hence my question. Were these aimed shots?
Aimed or not, it makes no difference from close by.
I repeat, were these aimed shots?
All shots are aimed. Even if the aim is sometimes bad.
No further questions, Your Honour.
Mr De Groot was hit by various bullets within the space of a few seconds.
One in the cheek. One in the right shoulder.
Two in the stomach area. These resulted in serious internal bleeding.
And the bullet that caused his death in a matter of minutes
was the bullet that entered his body just below his heart,
tore through his aorta and exited his body through his back.
Can you tell us the distance from which the victim was shot?
I would say the shooting distance
varied between maximum two metres for the first bullets fired
- and about 40 cm for the last one. - Thank you, Mr Tuypens. Miss Teugels?
Your Honour, may I ask the usher to hand me the gun in question?
Thank you. You said 40 cm, eh?
That is approximately this distance.
Miss Teugels, we are not in America. Show some restraint, please.
As usual, the psychiatrists disagreed.
If it were a football match I'd say it is one all. We have just....
Not bad. Tomorrow we're into extra time.
What do you think?
The doctor and the photos have had considerable impact.
To be honest, I found them upsetting too and I had seen them before.
And now news from abroad...
DAY 3
Mr Puype, how long have you known the accused?
It must be more than twenty years.
He had holiday jobs with my company as a student. He attracted my attention then.
- Attracted your attention in what way? - In the most positive way.
A... hard worker.
Ambitious too.
But without the mean streak that often accompanies ambition. And...
he was popular with everyone.
And he came to work for you after completing his studies?
Yes. Yes. He was going to be my successor.
At least... We were going to go out for a meal and I was going to tell him.
Well... ask him.
But his wife and little girl were murdered the day before....
Mr De Cock, please.
Please continue, Mr Puype.
After a while Luc returned to the office.
To start with he was just... How should I put it? Sad.
Although that word is far too weak to describe what he must have felt then.
- But from the moment that the... - Suspect.
Yes. Had to be released...
Something snapped inside Luc then.
He wasn't the same person anymore. We had lost him completely.
What happened then?
Something that I... Something that I am deeply ashamed of.
But a company doesn't stand still.
You have to move forward, you have responsibilities.
People who work for you, all their families.
So I... I appointed someone else.
Sorry, Luc.
You mustn't reproach yourself, Mr Puype.
Thank you. No further questions.
The witness may stand down. The court will resume again tomorrow at 9 a.m.
It was an emotional day at the Segers trial. Back to you, Stef.
Thank you, Elke Pattyn. You really are following it to the bitter end.
As is our legal expert in the studio this evening, Faroek Özgünes.
When is it the jury's turn?
In theory tomorrow evening after the closing arguments.
They will be sent out following the President of the Court's summing up.
- Until they've reached a decision? - Yes.
- And then? - Then judgement is passed
and the loser will question the principle of a jury of peers. As usual.
DAY 4
In this court, but in particular outside it,
it has repeatedly been said, in recent days and weeks,
that Kenny De Groot should have been behind bars.
And then this terrible event would not have happened.
That excessive importance was placed on a stupid procedural error
and that the lawyer who pleaded that procedural error, which was me,
bears overwhelming responsibility.
I would like to say this: a lawyer can only plead a procedural error
if a procedural error has actually occurred.
And pay particular attention to the word error in procedural error.
The lawyer is like a football referee who is abused for applying the rules.
The difference between a referee and a lawyer is
that a referee often has to interpret and improvise
while a lawyer simply applies the law.
And, ladies and gentlemen, the law is not some scrap of paper
that is open to interpretation and improvisation.
Interpretation, improvisation lead to carelessness.
Manipulation. Arbitrariness.
And the law was introduced, was fought for,
to protect the citizens of a democracy from mala fide forces
who benefit from arbitrariness and manipulation.
That is the difference, the point where democracy becomes dictatorship.
Which is why there are rules, procedures and laws that have to be adhered to.
And not just if it happens to be convenient, but always.
Kenny De Groot's basic rights were trampled on.
It is not because his neighbours don't like him
that he does not have the same rights as you and me and everyone else.
Because the law guarantees equality. It must guarantee it. Must protect it.
And protection of that equality
is of greater importance than any question of guilt.
No matter how absurd and unfair that may seem.
And if that upsets you, if it grieves you,
then it is up to the politicians and the judiciary to ensure
that it cannot happen again by making sound, clear laws
and being very careful when applying them.
The victim almost wasn't represented at this trial.
Because, in addition to a lot of other things, Kenny De Groot was,
above all, a lonely person.
It was a very distant cousin of his who asked me to be here to represent him.
Apart from that he wasn't interested.
They hadn't been in contact for years, it could stay that way.
I was able to reassure him regarding the latter. Eh?
I wanted to be here. Not because I feel responsible.
But because I suspected, feared that, as usual,
it would be the victim who was put on trial
and I wanted to qualify things where necessary.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, here are some photos
of Kenny De Groot as an infant. There aren't many.
And there aren't any in which he looks happy and carefree.
Kenny De Groot is the son of well-off, hard-working diamond traders
from Antwerp.
They wanted a perfect son. And they had Kenny. Kenny was perfect.
But when he was still wetting his pants at the age of three
and he was diagnosed with chronic incontinence,
their world fell apart, they hadn't wanted that.
They hadn't asked for it, didn't have time for it.
You can't boast to neighbours and acquaintances about that.
And what will the family say?
So... Kenny was safely hidden away
in a home for difficult children.
That could be arranged in return for substantial financial donations.
He learnt to control his incontinence as best he could,
because he really wanted his parents to able to feel proud of him.
At first his parents came to see him now and then,
but only for half an hour at a time, they were very, very busy.
When he was six he was allowed home at the weekends.
He went in the home's minibus, it was a ninety-minute drive.
The children who lived closer were dropped off first.
Until they got to the stop where his parents would pick him up.
The first time he waited there for an hour and a half.
All by himself.
Until it was dark. When a local police patrol car spotted him.
Only finding the home's address in his bag, they took him back there.
Next time the minibus waited ten minutes, then he got back in again.
After a few months...
Kenny stayed in the home at the weekends.
Can you imagine what that felt like for a 6-year-old child?
Kenny stayed in the home till he was 18, when he was turned out onto the street.
Where he survived using the instincts, the tricks,
but above all the toughness that he had learnt in the children's home.
So I am telling you.
If the system did fail anywhere, it was long before that fatal day
when the paths of Mrs Segers and Kenny De Groot crossed.
Did Kenny De Groot deserve to be shot and killed like a mad dog?
I am sure he did not.
So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am asking you
to find Luc Segers guilty of being the murderer that he is.
Thank you.
The Procurator General may now present his closing arguments.
Thank you, Your Honour.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
Facts are the only things that count in a court.
Everything that is not a fact is a lie.
So let me tell just the facts. The truth.
No matter how unpleasant they may sound.
Fact: There is only one accused in this case and that is Luc Segers.
Fact: Not only is the evidence against the accused incontestable,
he has even confessed.
Another fact: He admits following the victim, for days,
waiting for the right moment to strike.
And when Mr Segers had decided, in full possession of his faculties,
when the murder should occur, he purchased a gun illegally.
He followed each step of his plan fully aware of everything he was doing
and its consequences.
That is exactly what the law describes as premeditation.
So if we put all these facts together
and complete the puzzle, which is what the truth sometimes is,
then there is only one conclusion.
One truth. There is only one established fact.
Luc Segers, armed with an illegal gun,
executed unarmed Kenny De Groot in cold blood.
The murder itself was planned in detail and then carried out.
Only two kinds of murderers follow that pattern.
Hired assassins and those out for revenge.
Mr Segers was not working for someone else.
So Mr Segers was out for revenge.
There are hundreds of people in prison who acted out of revenge
and, I am telling you, they are there for good reason.
There is no argument for treating Mr Segers differently.
The defence will, of course, say there is. They will refer to Article 71,
for which they called an alleged expert from the Netherlands
with unproven theories. And I repeat, theories. Not facts.
No one denies that what Mr Segers experienced was terrible.
No one denies the pain Luc Segers will suffer for the rest of his life.
What happened was dreadful. But it is not unique.
In courts like this there are cases in which pensioners come face to face
con men who have run off with their entire pension.
In courts like this there are cases in which mothers and fathers face
the drunken driver who killed their child.
Knowing that he had been caught drink driving before.
In courts like this mothers and fathers have to listen, in detail,
to what rapists have done to their daughter.
Those are all tragic events, each and every one,
and all these people are torn apart
by grief, powerlessness and, yes, a desire for revenge.
All stages of the difficult process of coming to terms with what happened,
with the help of family, friends and social services.
But Mr Segers never accepted the help he was offered.
No. Mr Segers decided to afflict pain on someone else instead.
But, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, revenge is not the solution.
Ever.
And grief may not and cannot be an excuse for revenge.
Ever.
Luc Segers decided that he, unlike our society,
has the right to carry out the death sentence.
He decided to take the life of a fellow man, to kill him, murder him.
That does not make Luc Segers a martyr, a victim, a symbol.
That makes Luc Segers a murderer.
And you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, now have to decide
whether you will allow a murderer to go unpunished or not.
The Public Prosecutor's department is aware of his clean criminal record
and is prepared to take extenuating circumstances into account.
But first you have to decide whether or not he is guilty.
And the only way to do so is to look at the facts.
Thank you for listening.
Regardless of what the outcome is, was it worth it?
I mean, given what you now know...
Would you do it again?
Oh yes.
It's true that the computerization started by my predecessor
has been held up but things are now back on track.
The Procurator General has finished, they've adjourned for lunch.
Are you worried about the verdict
and how it will reflect on the Justice Department?
Worried? Why should I be worried?
I don't need to remind you there is a separation of powers in this country.
As a minister I do not have to comment on a verdict.
The department is subject to considerable criticism.
The department has done its best to make the justice system a modern...
There is no visible proof of that.
In 2000 you promised three new prisons by 2010. I see that...
Yes. Yes, that's true. But there are also things called procedures.
And those people who want more prisons are happy for them to be built anywhere,
except in their backyard, their town, or just to be sure, their province.
What do you want me to do? To go and dig some allotments up myself?
What the minister actually means is that we are hopeful
all administrative conditions will be met by the end of the year.
And the delay will be limited. Now, if you will excuse us...
- Thank you, gentlemen. - Right.
The fact that none of those guys have ever wondered
how come all the prisons are so full if the justice system isn't working,
is a very interesting contradiction.
That's because a third of those in prison are in custody awaiting trial.
Fortunately. That way we can keep them off the streets for a bit,
because we will never get them convicted.
No matter what your verdict may be, ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
there are no winners in this sad case, only losers.
Kenny De Groot is dead. Shot dead by Luc Segers.
Ella De Graeve and Anna Segers,
Luc Segers' wife and 7-year-old daughter, are also dead.
Killed during an outburst of senseless, brutal violence by Kenny De Groot.
Miss Teugels has spoken movingly about Kenny De Groot
and his sad story touched me too.
It is true that Kenny De Groot deserved a better life.
What his own parents did to him is a shameful disgrace.
I just hope they realise that they bear moral responsibility.
But... all decisions we make as an individual
are ultimately that individual's decision.
'Just say no' is an appropriate slogan in anti-drugs campaigns.
Drugs don't fly up your nose like pollen in the air.
A car doesn't travel at 180 km per hour by itself. The driver makes it do that.
Kenny De Groot wasn't the only one at that children's home.
Over the years hundreds, if not thousands of children have lived there
and been raised as well as possible, given the circumstances.
Most were not there voluntarily.
Most did not have the childhood they were entitled to as children.
But did they all become thieves as a result? Or murderers?
I don't think so.
This man has nothing left.
Yet, until recently, Luc Segers had everything he wanted.
A beautiful wife, a fantastic daughter.
A career, a future. He was popular with friends and colleagues.
He was the 'cement of society', as it's called.
Well, his future... has been taken from him.
Not by a natural disaster or an accident or illness
or even what is simply known as fate.
The unfairness of that is cruel and terrible and unbearable enough,
but there is nothing anyone can do about it.
You pick up the pieces, try to glue them back together again and carry on.
Because that's life. And people, who mean well, say that life goes on.
Sometimes it does. And sometimes it doesn't.
But... try to imagine
that fate has a face. A name.
That someone is guilty of your wife's death. Your child's death.
That someone is responsible for destroying all that is dear to you.
That all your plans, dreams and expectations are wiped out
and all that is left is pain and anger and grief.
The only thing left, the final straw to which you cling,
is the knowledge that we live in a constitutional state.
In an organized society that fights wrongdoing and punishes the wrongdoer.
That doesn't bring back the dead, of course. It doesn't undo the damage done.
But it is indispensable in helping people to come to terms with it.
If that doesn't happen...
If, due to a technicality or a so-called procedural error,
the wrongdoing is not fought and the wrongdoer is not punished,
what does that say about the law and justice?
Luc Segers has been let down by the justice system.
The tacit contract he, like all of us, has with the state
was unilaterally terminated.
We entrust the organization of society to the state.
We pay taxes for that. And substantial ones too.
And we assume that the state protects its citizens.
And if something goes wrong in spite of everything,
we assume that the state will intervene.
Correct things where possible. Punish where necessary.
That is also a contract entered into by the state.
Legal certainty is one of the cornerstones of our society.
An inalienable right. Something that goes without saying.
Remove that cornerstone and the constitutional state totters.
And no, unlike what my colleague has just claimed,
it is not the procedures that stand guard over the constitutional state.
The theory of the law does not take precedence over all else,
and certainly not if that theory is used, abused,
to keep the guilty out of prison. That undermines the law. Erodes it.
In the name of democracy, while in reality the opposite happens.
The law is no longer synonymous for justice.
As a result of which the citizen loses confidence in the constitutional state,
which, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is the bomb under the system.
If the constitutional state hadn't become a parody of what it should be,
then the criminal who ruined Luc Segers' life,
would have been tried and convicted and this trial would not have had to happen.
Is Luc Segers the first man whose wife was murdered?
No.
Is Luc Segers the first man to lose his child?
No.
But, as far as I know, he is the first man to be told
that, according to the letter of the law, those things did not happen.
Can imagine that? Can you begin to imagine that?
And at that moment something snapped inside Luc Segers.
You heard the witnesses. He was no longer himself.
It was as if there were a mist over his eyes.
Professor De Weers talked about
the shock that can be caused by grief and exposure to extreme violence.
Luc Segers' actions
were driven by what is described in Article 71 as an irresistible impulse.
And that is sufficient
to, in all conscience, find him not guilty.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
I am asking you to help this man, who is not a danger to society,
who, on the contrary, has been done a terrible injustice by society,
to get back on his feet again and allow him a future.
It will be a different future from the one brutally taken away from him.
But that is the least society, and you as representatives of society,
can do for this victim.
I wish you courage and wisdom for the task ahead.
Thank you for listening.
Mr Segers, do you wish to say anything before the jury is sent out?
I am an ordinary person, just like you.
And I was happy.
I don't know if I deserved that happiness. I think I did.
I've never knowingly harmed anyone. I've also always tried to do the right thing.
I have also always believed in our society's structures.
In our system... which takes care of us
and which, in spite of everything, I still think is the best system.
I think we should protect and nurture that system,
just as it protects and nurtures us.
And not accept abuse and manipulation of it by others
who have broken the law but who hide behind it.
Mr De Cock talked about my future.
I don't know what my future looks like.
All I can see at present is emptiness,
which I don't know that I will ever be able to fill.
I didn't choose what happened to me or to do what I did.
Of course I also don't know what I would do if I were in your position.
I think... I don't know.
I think that you have to do what you think is right.
And I will accept that, of course.
Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you now have the difficult task of...
We now have to wait for the jury's decision.
If their verdict is not guilty,
they accept his lawyer's argument of irresistible impulse.
And Luc Segers is a free man. If he is found guilty,
the jury and the Court will then have to consider his sentence.
The jury has been taken to a hotel. There won't be a decision this evening.
OK, thank you.
Is that good or bad?
To be honest, I don't know.
The jury has consulted with the judges on the motivation of their decision.
As you know, that is obligatory under European legislation.
The President of the Court will now read out the verdict.
The curtain is about to fall
on one of the most publicised court cases our country has ever known
and Luc Segers will discover...
Will the accused please stand for the reading of the verdict.
Whereas the judgement of the Indictment Division
on 22 December 2012 whereby Luc Segers, engineer,
born in Schilde on 11 January 1968,
resident in Temse...
Translated by Christine Le Piez The Subtitling Company
Every year dozens of people in Belgium are released or not prosecuted
due to procedural errors.
Including people traffickers, drug dealers,
perpetrators of violent crime, of sexual offences...
The procedural error problem was dealt with by the Franchimont Commission
in its proposal for a New Code of Criminal Procedure Law.
This proposal - from 2002 - has not yet been debated by parliament.