Court reopens assault case against footballer due to questions about legality of wiretap

The court in Amsterdam reopened the criminal investigation into Quincy Promes for stabbing his cousin due to concerns about whether tapped conversations used as evidence against him were legally obtained. The authorities tapped the footballer’s phone as part of another investigation into drug trafficking, and the Public Prosecution Service (OM) did not include the documents for the wiretap in this case file. The court wanted to test the wiretap's lawfulness and reopened the case.

The OM demanded a prison sentence of two years against the 31-year-old professional footballer. He allegedly stabbed his cousin in the knee at a party in Abcoude early on 25 July 2020. The OM suspects him of aggravated assault.

The court was due to rule on Friday but announced in the run-up to the verdict that the investigation would be reopened. It is not yet known when the next hearing will be.

During the trial, Promes’ lawyer pointed out that there was no way to know whether the tapped conversations used as evidence in this case were legally obtained. In these conversations, Promes spoke with his father and brother about the stabbing. The court wants the official report in which the authorities got permission to tap Promes’ phone. Those documents were missing from the file.

The OM did not want to include this information in the criminal file on the assault because it would “seriously harm” the drug investigation.

Promes was not present for his trial due to contractual obligations at his football club Spartak Moscow in Russia. The footballer worries about getting arrested if he comes to the Netherlands because the OM wants to question him about his alleged involvement in drug trafficking.

Lawyer Sophie Hof is very satisfied with the court’s interim ruling. “We said two weeks ago that we cannot test whether the taps were lawful because we lack underlying documents from the other investigation,” Promes’ lawyer said. “The examining magistrate who authorized the tap has seen it, but the defense has not. We want to check whether the tap was lawful, yes or no. The court also wants to be able to test it. And that is entirely justified. It also considers it important.”