Child Pornography - Home | National Rapporteur on Trafficking in ...

Implementation
A recent investigation reveals that deprivation of certain rights is demanded and imposed primarily
in cases of sex offences and fraud. 401 The investigation also brings to light the fact that judges
and public prosecutors are often unfamiliar with the possibilities for deprivation of rights. In cases
in which the Public Prosecution Service requested removal from the profession or removal from
office, this was granted in 88% of all sexual abuse cases (67 cases). This investigation concerned
sexual abuse cases in which removal from the profession or removal from office was requested
between 1995 and 2008. The same investigation also revealed that hardly any checks take place on
whether the removal has been enforced. An explanation for this is that it is hard to find judgments
in which a removal has been imposed, as a result of which professional organisations are not often
aware of this and therefore do not take appropriate measures. The Education Inspectorate carries
out most checks for removals, in particular by means of the requirements for a Certificate of Good
Conduct. 402 In sexual abuse cases, professions in the healthcare sector form the largest group for
which the Public Prosecution Service demands removals and that these are imposed by the court. 403
Exact figures regarding the number of removals from a profession in cases concerning child pornography
are not known. Restrictions in terms of profession and voluntary work are also imposed as a special condition
on individuals convicted in sexual abuse cases that also concern an infringement of Article 240b
of the Dutch Criminal Code. This special condition is then associated with a probationary period, during
which supervision can be exercised in order to determine compliance with this condition (see §3.6.2). 404
Another additional penalty that can be imposed is the confiscation of objects, for example, which were
used to help commit the offence. 405 It is often the case in child pornography cases that certain objects
are seized and that the court subsequently confiscates these. These objects can include computers, telephones
and recording equipment (see §3.5.4.2 below).
‘Profession or habit’ circumstance, which carries an increased penalty
Those who make a profession of committing one of the child pornography offences or those who make
a habit of committing such offences can be sentenced to a higher penalty: a custodial sentence of a
maximum of eight years or a fine of the fifth category. 406 When does the situation of ‘profession or
401 Malsch et al., 2009.
402 See §3.2.2. for more detailed information about this.
403 Malsch et al., 2011.
404 See for example Court of Utrecht, 9 February 2011, <strong>National</strong> Case Law Number: BP3760 (sexual abuse of an
underage boy, grooming, showing abusive material concerning children to minors, and the possession
of child abuse material. Amongst other sanctions imposed: the special condition of the prohibition of
work – both professional and voluntary – involving children, for a probationary period of three years);
Court of Den Bosch, 18 February 2011, <strong>National</strong> Case Law Number: BP4903 (judgment relevant to Articles
240b, 244 and 246. Amongst other sanctions imposed: the special condition includes the suspect not being
allowed to give singing or piano lessons at their own home for a probationary period of three years.).
405 See Articles 33 and 33a of the Dutch Criminal Code.
406 Not so long ago, in 2009, the maximum sentence for the professional or habitual possession, production,
distribution, etc. of child abuse material was increased from six to eight years. An important
consequence of altering the maximum sentence is the ability to implement greater investigative powers
that exist by virtue of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
183