STRASBOURG, France (CN) — A Dutch court was wrong to hold an appeals hearing in absentia after the defendant’s lawyer made a scheduling mistake, Europe’s top rights court ruled Tuesday.
The European Court of Human Rights found that a woman convicted of shoplifting had the right to be present for her appeal, scheduled while she was traveling for work after her lawyer failed to notify the court.
“The applicant wished to address that court in person in order to explain the causes of her reoffending and also her willingness to prevent further occurrences of shoplifting ... the court takes the view that she should have been enabled to do so,” the Strasbourg-based court wrote.
The woman, identified only as X in court documents, was sentenced in 2015 to four weeks in jail and a fine of 5,000 euros ($6,000) for shoplifting, which she appealed. She had previously been convicted of shoplifting before, a compulsion she says was related to mental illness. She appealed the sentence and informed her lawyer of dates that she would be abroad for work.
Her lawyer failed to inform the court and her appeals hearing was scheduled for a day in July 2015 when she wouldn’t be in the country. She wanted to appear in person, arguing she would be the most effective at pleading her case.
“I would like to attend the hearing myself because I am best placed to explain the causes of my reoffending and also my willingness to prevent reoccurrence,” she told the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal in an email after learning of the hearing date.
The court denied her request to reschedule, writing it had “weighed the interest of society in an effective and expeditious trial and the interest of a proper organization of judicial proceedings.” In the Netherlands, defendants can be tried in absentia – without being present – if they have been informed by the court of the proceedings against them.
Her conviction was upheld and her numerous appeals were unsuccessful. After exhausting her legal options in The Netherlands, she filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights. Established in 1953 by the European Convention on Human Rights, the court protects the political and civil rights of Europeans.
The seven-judge panel found that the Dutch courts had put too much emphasis on the expeditiousness of the hearing and didn’t give enough consideration to the woman's right to defend herself.
“While the interests cited by the court of appeal were undoubtedly relevant, the court considers that in the circumstances of the present case they were not sufficient to outweigh the applicant’s right to attend the hearing of her appeal in person,” the court wrote.
The woman's lawyer, Michael Berndsen, echoed that sentiment in an interview.
“The Dutch judiciary is sometimes accused of trying to be too cost-effective,” he said.
The Dutch government had argued that because it was an appeals hearing, the defendant's appearance in court was less important. But the Strasbourg court disagreed.
“The applicant was clearly worried about the consequences for her employment … and the outcome of the proceedings before the court of appeal was therefore of crucial importance to her,” the judges found.
The court ordered the Netherlands to pay the woman 4,750 euros ($5,620) in costs and expenses. The rights court's ruling gives her the opportunity to ask for a retrial, but her lawyer said she has not decided what her next step will be.
The Netherlands is one of several European countries that allow cases to be heard without the defendant present.
Follow @mollyquell
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Arizona House supports repeal of 1864 abortion ban April 24, 2024 -
