Prosecutors seek community service for man accused in University of Amsterdam plank case
The Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie) wants community service and a partly suspended prison term for a man accused of hitting two onlookers on the head with a wooden plank at the 2024 pro-Palestine protest at the University of Amsterdam.
Prosecutors called for a community service sentence (taakstraf) and 100 days in prison, 64 of them suspended, for Samer A. (37). He is accused of assaulting two onlookers at the pro-Palestine protest camp at the University of Amsterdam.
A. has already served the unsuspended part of the prison term in pre-trial detention. Videos shown in court on Tuesday show him hitting the two people on the head with a wooden plank during a confrontation between two groups at the Roeterseiland campus.
According to the prosecution, the two victims were not part of the group of troublemakers who came to disrupt the demonstration, but were watching the confrontation, and one was filming. The prosecution says A. therefore cannot claim self-defence.
A. described an emergency. “I felt intimidated. I picked up the stick to chase people away,” he told the judges. “I had been hit with torches and I was afraid.”
One of the victims read a statement in court. “I find it bizarre that it occurs to someone to hit me on the head with a stick. I did not dare enter Amsterdam for a year,” he said. “It has made me wonder to what extent I can still live out my Jewish identity here.”
In an earlier case, over damage to a university building on 13 May 2024, A. was sentenced on appeal to three months in prison. That case is still before the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad).
More on crime and the courts · safety and emergencies
Follow the story: OM
OM (Openbaar Ministerie)
The Public Prosecution Service, which decides whether suspects are prosecuted and brings criminal cases to court.
Hoge Raad
The Supreme Court of the Netherlands is the highest court in the Dutch judicial system for civil, criminal and tax cases. It reviews whether lower courts have applied the law correctly, and it does not generally retry the facts of a case. Its rulings set the legal standard that other courts follow.