Mulder Fact in Den Haag: Unwitting Speeding Offence
In Den Haag's traffic, a Mulder fact can protect you from a fine for a speeding offence of which you reasonably had no knowledge. This principle from Dutch traffic criminal law, based on a 1985 Supreme Court ruling, offers a valuable exception for unexpected situations. It prevents unjust sanctions for Den Haag drivers in busy urban traffic.
The Origin of the Mulder Fact
The Mulder fact stems from the landmark Mulder ruling by the Supreme Court on 22 October 1985 (ECLI:NL:HR:1985:AC2562, NJ 1986/154). Mr Mulder was driving at 104 km/h where the limit was 80 km/h, but his speedometer showed 85 km/h due to a fault. The Court held that there is no criminal liability without reasonable knowledge of the offence. This forms the core of the Mulder case law, which is highly relevant in Den Haag with its many speed cameras.
It aligns with the culpability principle: punishment requires fault. Without knowledge, that fault is absent.
Legal Basis
Though primarily based on case law, it is supported by:
- Article 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1994: Speeding offences as administrative violations.
- Article 37 of the Criminal Code: No punishment without fault.
- Article 5 of the former Road Traffic Act: Limited by the Mulder ruling.
Conditions for a Successful Mulder Fact in Den Haag
The District Court of Den Haag applies strict requirements. Overview:
| Condition | Explanation | Den Haag Example |
|---|---|---|
| Unexpected reading | Surprise flash; no repetition. | One-off 15 km/h over on the Laan van Wateringsveld, speedometer below limit. |
| No knowledge | Did not know and could not have known. | Speedometer calibration error during rush hour on the A4. |
| Reasonable circumstances | Normal traffic, no extra risk. | Clear lane near Scheveningen, no signs. |
| No gross negligence | No recklessness. | No distraction in city centre traffic. |
Failure to meet these leads to a Mulder-plus: punishment despite lack of knowledge, e.g. for repeat offences in Den Haag.
Practical Examples at the District Court of Den Haag
Example 1: Faulty Speedometer
Caught at 125 km/h (limit 100 km/h) on the N44, speedometer showed 102 km/h. Inspection proves fault: Den Haag police court discontinues (Article 12(1)(c) Code of Criminal Procedure).
Example 2: Rush Hour Congestion
Brief overtaking in traffic jam on the Utrechtsebaan: Court of Appeal of Den Haag recognises Mulder for one-off incident.
Example 3: Rejection
Repeat offence 25 km/h over in city centre: Public Prosecutor shows pattern, punishment follows.
Such successes in Den Haag cases.
Rights and Obligations in a Mulder Defence
Rights:
- Defence at District Court of Den Haag hearing or Public Prosecutor's Office.
- Seize speedometer for RDW inspection.
- Appeal (Article 67 Code of Criminal Procedure).
Obligations:
- File defence within 14 days of Public Prosecutor's Office notification.
- Evidence: inspection report, trip description.
- Cooperate with RDW/ANWB.
Always note 'Mulder defence' in the police report!
FAQs for Den Haag
Does the Mulder fact apply to every speed camera in Den Haag?
No, only for one-off and minor cases. Recidivism or >30 km/h often fails at the District Court of Den Haag.
How do I prove it locally?
RDW inspection or certified garage. Include Den Haag trip details in your defence.
Public Prosecutor's Office rejects?
Attend the District Court of Den Haag hearing. Success rate ~40-60% with solid evidence.
Also for speed cameras in Den Haag?
Yes, with speedometer evidence and photos.
Tips for Den Haag Drivers
- Action: Do not pay immediately; keep the police report.
- Inspection: €50-100, often reimbursed.
- Template letter: Via Legal Aid or Juridisch Loket Den Haag.
- Lawyer: For high fines; consult Juridisch Loket Den Haag.