Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Substantive and Procedural Legislation in the Netherlands to Combat Webcam-Related Child Sexual Abuse

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sweetie 2.0

Part of the book series: Information Technology and Law Series ((ITLS,volume 31))

  • 704 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter deals with Dutch substantive criminal law and criminal procedure and the extent to which it can combat webcam-related child sexual abuse. In summary we can say that the substantive legal framework for the protection of minors against webcam sex in the Netherlands is generally adequate, particularly with the amendments enacted by the Computer Crime III Act in 2018. Criminal procedural law offers generally adequate investigation powers, but questions remain regarding the legality of using Sweetie as an investigative power given its hybrid character (both as lure and as undercover method), and regarding the risk of incitement or entrapment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Article 81 Dutch Constitution.

  2. 2.

    Tak 2008, p. 4.

  3. 3.

    It seems that in Dutch literature, examining magistrate, examining judge and investigative judge are used interchangeably to translate the Dutch rechter-commissaris.

  4. 4.

    When discussing child webcam sex abuse and the ways of combatting it, the Sweetie case will be taken as the main example as a basis for discussion.

  5. 5.

    See: Machielse 2015.

  6. 6.

    See for instance: Nan 2012.

  7. 7.

    Staatsblad [Dutch Official Journal] 1993, 33.

  8. 8.

    Staatsblad [Dutch Official Journal] 2006, 300.

  9. 9.

    Staatsblad [Dutch Official Journal] 2018, 322, entry into force 1 March 2019.

  10. 10.

    Staatsblad [Dutch Official Journal] 2002, 388.

  11. 11.

    Staatsblad [Dutch Official Journal] 1999, 245.

  12. 12.

    See for instance Schermer 2012.

  13. 13.

    See: ECLI:NL:HR:2004:AQ0950.

  14. 14.

    See for instance: ECLI:NL:RBHAA:2008:BD8449.

  15. 15.

    ECLI:NL:HR:2014:3140.

  16. 16.

    Cleiren and Nijboer 2000, comment 6a on Article 248a DCC.

  17. 17.

    HR [Dutch Supreme Court] 20 January 1998, NJ 1998, 336, mentioned in Cleiren and Nijboer 2000, comment 6a on Article 248a DCC.

  18. 18.

    ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2013:3706.

  19. 19.

    Kamerstukken II 2001–2002, 27 745, nr. 6, p. 11.

  20. 20.

    ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BY9719.

  21. 21.

    See: ECLI:NL:RBBRE:2006:AV1470.

  22. 22.

    See e.g. Rechtbank Leeuwarden, 23 April 2009, ECLI:NL:RBLEE:2009:BI2330, and Rechtbank Leeuwarden, 10 mei 2011, ECLI:NL:RBLEE:2011:BQ4176.

  23. 23.

    ECLI:NL:RBROT:2014:8074.

  24. 24.

    ECLI:NL:HR:2014:3140.

  25. 25.

    See for instance: ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2014:7494.

  26. 26.

    See: ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2013:2302.

  27. 27.

    Kamerstukken II 2015–2016, 34 372, nr. 2.

  28. 28.

    Advice of the Dutch Council of State, Kamerstukken II 2015–2016, 34 372, nr. 4.

  29. 29.

    Kamerstukken II 2015–2016, 34 372, nr. 3, p. 70.

  30. 30.

    Kamerstukken II 2016/17, 34 372, nr. 15.

  31. 31.

    Tak 2008, p. 29.

  32. 32.

    Hirsch Ballin 2012, p. 39.

  33. 33.

    Kamerstukken II 2015–2016, 29 279, nr. 278.

  34. 34.

    Voorstel van wet tot vaststelling van Boek 2 van het nieuwe Wetboek van Strafvordering (Het opsporingsonderzoek), February 2017, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/modernisering-wetboek-van-strafvordering/documenten/kamerstukken/2017/02/07/wetsvoorstel-tot-vaststelling-van-boek-2-van-het-nieuwe-wetboek-van-strafvordering.

  35. 35.

    Tak 2008, p. 82.

  36. 36.

    See Article 141 DCCP.

  37. 37.

    Hirsch Ballin 2012, p. 62.

  38. 38.

    Article 27 DCCP.

  39. 39.

    Schermer 2007, p. 93.

  40. 40.

    The ECtHR uses the terms incitement and entrapment interchangeably in their case law.

  41. 41.

    HR 4 December 1979, NJ 1980, 356 m.nt ThWvV.

  42. 42.

    Council of Europe (2013), p. 25.

  43. 43.

    Council of Europe (2013), p. 25.

  44. 44.

    Council of Europe (2013), p. 26.

  45. 45.

    Council of Europe (2013), p. 26.

  46. 46.

    HR 28 oktober 2008, ECLI:NL:HR:2008:BE9817 (Lokfiets-arrest).

  47. 47.

    HR 6 oktober 2009, ECLI:NL:HR:2009:BI7084 (Lokauto-arrest).

  48. 48.

    ECLI:NL:PHR:2008:BE9817 (Conclusion of the AG in Lokfiets-arrest).

  49. 49.

    Parts of this section have been derived from Schermer 2007.

  50. 50.

    See for instance: Oerlemans and Koops 2013.

  51. 51.

    See for instance: Oerlemans and Koops 2013. See also Commissie modernisering opsporingsonderzoek in het digitale tijdperk 2018.

  52. 52.

    That is, crimes for which pre-trial detention is allowed—generally, crimes carrying a maximum penalty of at least four years’ imprisonment, but also including some specifically designated crimes, including most cybercrimes and Articles 248d and 248e DCC.

  53. 53.

    Aanwijzing opsporingsbevoegdheden, Staatscourant 2014, 24442, Sect. 5.1.

  54. 54.

    Nieuwenhuis 2015, Article 126l (en 126s).

  55. 55.

    Note, however, that visual observation in the form of recording images is not allowed inside dwellings, so the police is not allowed to turn on a webcam if there is reason to believe that the computer is inside a dwelling. Kamerstukken II 2015–2016, 34 372, nr. 3, pp. 26–27 and Kamerstukken II 2016–2017, 34 372, no. 6, p. 50.

  56. 56.

    Aanhangsel Handelingen II 2016–2017, 948, p. 2.

  57. 57.

    The use of infiltration (Article 126h DCCP) may not be possible, given that infiltration is aimed at entering a criminal group, rather than having one-on-one contact with individual crime perpetrators. It might be used, however, in investigations of online platforms that are specifically used by an underground community dedicated to facilitating online sexual child abuse.

  58. 58.

    See for instance Ölçer 2014.

  59. 59.

    Buruma and Koops 2004, p. 117.

  60. 60.

    Staatsblad [Dutch Official Journal] 2006, 524.

  61. 61.

    Cf Commissie modernisering opsporingsonderzoek in het digitale tijdperk 2018.

References

  • Buruma Y, Koops BJ (2004) Formeel strafrecht en ICT. In: Koops BJ (ed) Strafrecht en ICT. Sdu Uitgevers, The Hague, pp 79–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleiren CPM, Nijboer JF (eds) (2000) Tekst & commentaar strafrecht. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Commissie modernisering opsporingsonderzoek in het digitale tijdperk (2018) Regulering van opsporingsbevoegdheden in een digitale omgeving (Commissie Koops), June 2018 (in Dutch)

    Google Scholar 

  • European Court of Human Rights (2013) Guide on Article 6, right to a fair trial (criminal limb)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch Ballin MFH (2012) Anticipative criminal investigation. Theory and counterterrorism practice in the Netherlands and the United States. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Machielse AJM (2015) Artikel 45 Sr, aant. 2.6.2. In: Noyon TJ, Langemeijer GE, Remmelink J (eds) Het Wetboek van Strafrecht. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Nan JS (2012) Het lex certa-beginsel. Sdu Uitgevers, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwenhuis M (2015) Commentaar op Wetboek van Strafvordering Article 126l (en 126s). Tekst & commentaar strafvordering

    Google Scholar 

  • Oerlemans JJ, Koops BJ (2013) Surveilleren en opsporen in een internetomgeving. Justitiële Verkenningen 38/5

    Google Scholar 

  • Ölçer FP (2014) De lokmethode bij de opsporing van grooming. Computerrecht 2014/3

    Google Scholar 

  • Schermer BW (2007) Software agents, surveillance, and the right to privacy: a legislative framework for agent-enabled surveillance. Leiden University Press, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Schermer BW (2012) Digitale IRT-affaire of nieuwe opsporing? http://webwereld.nl/beveiliging/59972-digitale-irt-affaire-of-nieuwe-opsporing-opinie. Accessed 7 October 2015

  • Tak PJP (2008) The Dutch criminal justice system. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

Relevant Case Law

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Law and Digital Technologies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Bart W. Schermer & Simone van der Hof

  2. Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Bert-Jaap Koops

Authors
  1. Bart W. Schermer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bert-Jaap Koops
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simone van der Hof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bart W. Schermer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Law and Digital Technologies (eLaw), Leiden Law School, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Simone van der Hof

  2. Faculty Governance and Global Affairs, Institute of Security and Global Affairs (ISGA), Leiden University, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Ilina Georgieva

  3. Center for Law and Digital Technologies (eLaw), Leiden Law School, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Bart Schermer

  4. Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT), Tilburg Law School, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Bert-Jaap Koops

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schermer, B.W., Koops, BJ., van der Hof, S. (2019). Substantive and Procedural Legislation in the Netherlands to Combat Webcam-Related Child Sexual Abuse. In: van der Hof, S., Georgieva, I., Schermer, B., Koops, BJ. (eds) Sweetie 2.0. Information Technology and Law Series, vol 31. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-288-0_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-288-0_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-287-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-288-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation