Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 1 november 2022

Onder 3.29 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 1 november 2022

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 1 november 2022, ECLI:NL:PHR:2022:1012.

62. As regards the Government’s argument that the applicant did not request that E. be summoned at the closure of the preliminary investigation or at the outset of the trial, the Court considers that in adversarial proceedings it is for each party to produce evidence supporting its case. Therefore, it does not appear that the applicant can be reproached for not asking for a prosecution witness to be summoned. Moreover, at a later stage of the proceedings, after the video recording of E.’s pre-trial interview had been watched at the hearing, the applicant did ask for E. to be examined in court. The courts rejected this request on the merits. Thus, the Court considers that the courts’ attention was sufficiently drawn to the handicaps under which the defence was labouring, and were, in principle, afforded an opportunity to remedy the situation.

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/ca8ee5fa293a7d7332ebc964678afa3f3c3d2dce7b1f5a867ed22068c9fb6872. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt ca8ee5fa293a7d7332ebc964678afa3f3c3d2dce7b1f5a867ed22068c9fb6872, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 114874 tot 115746.