Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 2 september 2016
Onder 4.24 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 2 september 2016
Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 2 september 2016, ECLI:NL:PHR:2016:866.
In many cases it will therefore be sufficient to make an order for delivery up of the documents to the claimant’s sollicitor for copying and the return to the defendant, or an order that the defendant do preserve documents pending further order . The more intrusive orders allowing searches of premises or vehicles require a careful balancing of, on the one hand, the purpose of the order, and, on the other hand, violation of the privacy of a defendant who has had no opportunity to put his side of the case. It is not merely that the defendant may be innocent. The making of an intrusive order ex parte even against a guilty defendant is contrary to normal principles of justice and can only be done when there is a paramount need to prevent a denial of justice to the claimant. An order will not be made against persons of good standing who are unlikely to disobey an order of the court. The absolute extremity of the court’s powers is to permit a search of a defendant’s dwelling house, with the humiliation and family distress which that frequently involves.” (cursivering A-G).
Zelf controleren
Voor dit citaat hoeft niemand Bron op zijn woord te geloven. Het document dat rechtspraak.nl publiceerde, staat op https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/ef82db5e59a571fd4f5b3566db666046af6077472c7b202adb672ea3e58b6bf8. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt ef82db5e59a571fd4f5b3566db666046af6077472c7b202adb672ea3e58b6bf8, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 64243 tot 65382.
$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/ef82db5e59a571fd4f5b3566db666046af6077472c7b202adb672ea3e58b6bf8 | shasum -a 256