Onder 3.15 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 7 juli 2016

(…) A different matter is the reasoning on compensation of a judge who has previously voted for acquittal, as was the case of Mr Justice Einarsen. The first limb of his reasoning (“on the balance of probabilities there is a clear probability that the defendant is guilty of setting the fire as described in the indictment”, emphasis added), is open to criticism, if read on its own. However, it is contradicted by the second limb of the same sentence (“even though in his opinion the evidence in the case does not suffice to establish criminal guilt as regards these charges for the reason that he is unable to exclude that the fire could have been caused by an electrical fault” emphasis added), which suggests that the choice of words in the first limb was an unfortunate slip. It cannot reasonably be read as an affirmation imputing criminal liability for arson on the part of the applicant. The judge’s detailed grounds, stated over several pages in the same judgment, for acquitting the applicant of the arson-related charges confirms this. When read in the context of the judgment as a whole, the reader cannot be left with any doubt as to the meaning of the judge’s reasoning on compensation: while the evidence was insufficient for establishing criminal liability, it was sufficient for ascertaining civil liability to pay compensation.

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/117f6356e3a6b9d0a89dbfcbf19a63482f2d85d4e9a502009562e648d0c77c33 | shasum -a 256