Willem van den Berg - France

March 07

Update as of: March 2007

Willem is now back in the Netherlands having served his sentence

---

Willem van den Berg is a Dutch lorry driver who was convicted of smuggling 220 kilos of cannabis into France. Although all charges were initially dropped, he was later jailed for 2 years on appeal by the prosecution. His French lawyer failed to file an appeal to the Cour de Cassation in Paris (the highest court) within the mandatory five-day period. A subsequent pardon application to President Chirac has been turned down.

Willem's story, which features on the website of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a warning to other drivers, is one of negligence and oversight. The Dutch Foreign Ministry’s consular services in Paris did not forward questions put by the French police to the Dutch authorities. Exculpatory evidence and key witness statements were therefore never added to the court file.

On 4 June 2003, Willem started his usual route from the Netherlands to the UK. He loaded copiers and computer equipment and as there was still space left in his trailer, he picked up two wooden boxes at his usual forwarder in Holland, as instructed.

In the words of Willem;

“I arrived in Calais; I had to go through the scan, which makes radiographic photos of the car and the cargo. They found 225 kilos of hash in the last 2 boxes. According to the paper documentation I received with the goods, they contained spare parts. Of course smuggling hash is strictly prohibited so it scared my pants off. I had to drive the lorry in a shed and I was immediately handcuffed. They searched the cabin which resulted in a complete mess. The tractor and semi-trailer were confiscated. All this started at about 10pm. I was questioned during the whole night until 6.00 the next morning. Then I tried to catch up on some sleep on a concrete bed without a mattress. The next afternoon I was brought over to a police station. I had to pay €200 immediately for possible costs. Hardly anybody there spoke English. Again I was questioned the whole afternoon and evening, this time with a Dutch interpreter, as the police did not speak English. The next day I was questioned by someone else; afterwards we went to court. I got a French lawyer; he would visit me once to go through the matter. The court session was scheduled for the 30th June, therefore I had to wait three weeks. In the meantime I was treated like a major criminal, but I was simply innocent, I had nothing to do with it! “

“I was brought to a prison, where I had to hand in all my personal belongings. I could only keep my own cloths. After a couple of days I was visited by an employee of the Dutch embassy. It was fine again to speak Dutch, but he really could not help me. He only could tell me what was ahead of me. If I had problems, I could take contact them. Here I was sitting in a small cell with a French guy. He was OK, but he could only speak French which I do not. In fact this cell has been intended for one person, but because of shortage we had to share it. We had a TV with only French stations, which I had to pay for. Together we shared one toilet. One shower was allocated for 20 men of all nationalities, so it is easy to imagine how the situation is. The showers were regularly cold as ice. Twice a day we would get food. Not the French food I used to get, but I had to accept it. There was just water to drink and once a day some coffee. One morning I was sent to the doctor for a thorough test of lungs, eyes and AIDS etc. Nobody spoke English here which made life more difficult. Mornings between 10.00 and 11.00 and afternoons between 15.00 and 16.00 we were allowed out into the open into a yard. The yard was strewn with plastic, paper bags and other rubbish, as nobody seemed to make the effort to throw rubbish in the bins. You could, however, write letters. I liked to receive frequently mail from everyone, because sitting all day doing nothing made me feel very lonely. Receiving phone-calls or phoning to the Netherlands was absolutely not allowed. I missed my family, my house and all my friends very much.”

At Willem’s court hearing on 30 June 2003, all charges were dropped and he was allowed to return to the Netherlands. The prosecution appealed and in May 2004, he was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and a fine of €327 000.

Willem was already back in the Netherlands when his sentence was handed down. He was arrested on 9 April 2005 coming off a ferry in Ostende, and extradited to France. His detention will end on the 14th of October 2006.

Fair Trial Issues

1. An official request known as a Commission Rogatoire, was made by the French police asking for three Dutch witnesses to be questioned regarding the loading of the two boxes in the Netherlands. Although this request was submitted to the Liaison Magistrate at the Dutch Embassy in Paris, no answer was forthcoming from the Dutch authorities. In the absence of any exculpatory evidence to sustain Willem’s denial of knowledge regarding the hidden cargo, he was found guilty on appeal.
2. It is clear that the judges are out of touch with modern-day transport and delivery procedures.
3. The trial judges claimed that no one would trust such a quantity drugs (220 kilos cannabis) of which the street value is approximately €330,000 to an uninvolved courier as there would be no certainty about the goods arriving safely.
4. The judges further maintained that it was proof of Willem’s guilt that the boxes were extensively sealed to avoid checks during the trip and that the CMR’s (official documentation accompanying transported goods) for these two boxes were false. We argue that Willem was doing a normal routine trip with normal goods from trusted parties, in this case his usual forwarder. There was no reason to suspect illegal goods in the two boxes; further, under CMR para 8(1) the carrier ‘shall check (a) the accuracy of the statements in the consignment note as to the numbers of packages and their marks and their numbers, and (b) the apparent condition of the goods and their packaging. So a driver must take on trust that the contents of the boxes are as is stated and, under international law, he is not allowed to check.
5. Willem’s request for parole after serving half time, as possibly under French law, was denied in February 2006. The judge ruled that as Willem had indicated that he was planning to take up his old job with his former employer after his release, he would deliberately risk repeating the crime and therefore he should not be given early liberty.